Hi, and welcome to the session. Let us discuss the following question. Question says, integrate the following functions. Given function is 5x minus 2 upon 1 plus 2x plus 3x squared. First of all, let us understand that integral dx upon x squared plus a squared is equal to 1 upon a tan inverse x upon a plus c where c is the constant of integration and integral dx upon x is equal to log x plus c where c is the constant of integration. Now these two formulas of integration are key idea to solve the given question. Let us start with the solution. Now we have to find the integral 5x minus 2 dx upon 1 plus 2x plus 3x squared. Where we can see this integral is of the form px plus q upon a x squared plus bx plus c. So we will put px plus q that is 5x minus 2 equal to a multiplied by derivative of 1 plus 2x plus 3x squared that is denominator of the given integral plus b Now we know derivative of 1 plus 2x plus 3x squared is equal to 2 plus 6x so we can write it as a multiplied by 2 plus 6x plus b is equal to 5x minus 2. Now comparing the coefficient of x on both the sides we get 6x is equal to 5 and this implies a is equal to 5 upon 6 Now comparing the constant terms on both the sides we get 2a plus b is equal to minus 2. Now substituting value as a 5 upon 6 in this expression we get 2 multiplied by 5 upon 6 plus b is equal to minus 2. Now we will cancel common factor 2 and we get b is equal to minus 2 minus 5 upon 3 Now this further implies b is equal to minus 11 upon 3.  Now let us name this integral as i1 and this integral as i2. So we can write this expression is equal to 5 upon 6 i1 minus 11 upon 3 i2. Now let us name this expression as 1 Now first of all we will find out integral i1 that is 6x plus 2 dx upon 1 plus 2x plus 3x square. Not really we can see 6x plus 2 is derivative of 1 plus 2x plus 3x square. So to find this integral we will use substitution method. So we can write put 1 plus 2x plus 3x square equal to t. Differentiating both sides with respect to x we get 2 plus 6x is equal to dt upon dx Now this can be further written as 6x plus 2 dx is equal to dt.  Now using the second formula given in key idea we get dt upon t is equal to log t plus c where c is the constant of integration we also know that t is equal to 1 plus 2x plus 3x square.  So we get integral i1 is equal to log of 1 plus 2x plus 3x square plus c. Now we will find the integral i2. Now we felt finding the integral i2. First of all let us consider the expression 1 plus 2x plus 3x square.  Now this can be further written as 3 multiplied by 1 upon 3 plus 2 multiplied by 1 upon 3 multiplied by x plus x square plus square of 1 upon 3 minus square of 1 upon 3. We know 2 upon 3x can be written as 2 multiplied by 1 upon 3 multiplied by x and here we have done addition and subtraction of the same term that is square as 1 upon 3. Now this expression is further equal to 3 multiplied by x plus 1 upon 3 whole square plus 1 upon 3 minus 1 upon 9. Now a square plus v square plus 2ab is equal to a plus b whole square and 1 upon 3 is written as it is and square of 1 upon 3 is equal to 1 upon 9. So we can write 1 upon 3 minus 1 upon 9 here. Now this is further equal to 3 multiplied by square of x plus 1 upon 3 plus 2 upon 9. Let us now find the integral i2 that is integral dx upon 1 plus 2x plus 3x square. Now we have shown about that 1 plus 2x plus 3x square can be written as 3 multiplied by whole square of x plus 1 upon 3 plus 2 upon 9. So this integral is equal to dx upon 3 multiplied by square of x plus 1 upon 3 plus 2 upon 9. Now this is further equal to 1 upon 3 integral dx upon square of x plus 1 upon 3 plus 2 upon 9. Now we know 2 upon 9 is square of root 2 upon 3. So we can write this integral as 1 upon 3 multiplied by integral dx upon x plus 1 upon 3 whole square plus root 2 upon 3 square where we can see derivative of x plus 1 upon 3 is 1. So we will solve this integral by substitution method. So we can write x plus 1 upon 3 is equal to 2. Now differentiating both sides with respect to x we get 1 is equal to dt upon dx. Now this further implies dx is equal to dt. Now let us find out this integral. We know this integral is equal to 1 upon 3 multiplied by dt upon p square plus square of root 2 upon 3 substituting dt for dx in this integral and t for x plus 1 upon 3 in this integral we get this integral is equal to this integral. Now using first formula given in key idea we get this integral is equal to 1 upon 3 multiplied by 3 upon root 2 multiplied by tan inverse t upon root 2 upon 3 plus c where c is the constant of integration. Now integral of dx upon x square plus a square is equal to 1 upon a multiplied by tan inverse x upon a plus c where c is the constant of integration. Here value as a is root 2 upon 3 and x has been replaced by variable t. Now simplifying this expression further and substituting value of t here we get 1 upon root 2 tan inverse x plus 1 upon 3 upon root 2 upon 3 plus c now this is further equal to 1 upon root 2 tan inverse 3x plus 1 upon root 2 plus c. So integral i2 is equal to 1 upon root 2 tan inverse 3x plus 1 upon root 2 plus c. Now we will substitute values of i1 and i2 in expression 1. Expression 1 is 5 upon 6 i1 minus 11 upon 3 i2. Now you know i1 is equal to log of 1 plus 2x plus 3x square. So we can write it as 5 upon 6 multiplied by log of 1 plus 2x plus 3x square minus 11 upon 3 multiplied by value of i2 is this.  Here c is the constant of integration Now this can be further written as 5 upon 6 log of 3x square plus 2x plus 1 minus 11 upon 3 root 2 tan inverse of 3x plus 1 upon root 2 plus c.  So this is our required answer. This completes the session. If you understood the solution, take care and have a nice day.


This video is brought to you by brandmannetwork.com because I signed myself. Now this is a snippet from an interview with an artist by the name of J.Cane who's been doing a lot of things finding success for himself in the digital space but he actually had a hit in his own right some years ago that he had zero benefits from. And I'm gonna let him tell you why. Yeah that was my question. I was gonna say have you ever felt pressure to really get into that other bag of melodies and different types of beats? Oh yeah I have that. I have all of that. Me and Kato we have a we have a couple wrecks together where I'm actually not on that vibe. Like we have a record we done years ago when he was with Funk Value called Make Fine and the record was big actually it got big on me and it left me you ever like I had a record leave me I had a record that was playing overseas and like doing big numbers on the radio and I had no rights no I had no rights to it I had no no no publishing I had nothing to collect the royalties or anything and the record was open and when I came and done the record on the stage like I had a show and somebody called me I didn't want to be to do a show and and I came and you know and I played Maker Mind I did the song Maker Mind and it was like that's you and I'm like yeah that's me you know Streets 945 that's what it was Streets 945 was like where were you and I'm like where was I and it was like yeah man this record been playing over a year on the radio station Wow where have you been I was like I didn't know that but yeah but yeah the Maker Mind record but since how does that happen well I noticed that it had a hundred thousand plays on SoundCloud but I didn't have the pro so I didn't know where was getting played I didn't even know how to read the analytics or how to prepare tours and shows in different cities once you find out where mostly the fan base is or even how to get it to radio or how radio would pick it up or how would they would track the numbers or anything or media base or sound exchange I didn't know nothing about that I just knew about doing music and putting it on SoundCloud and that was it that's all I knew about but I had it for download on SoundCloud and so yeah when I went there I had over 50,000 downloads for the song but let me remind you I'm more of a M&M Rappie type guy I didn't really care for the record you get what I say I just put it up I saw I was getting plays I saw I had 50,000 downloads but I just was like oh people like it okay whatever you know I didn't care about it you know but when when I did the show they said man where were you do you have your copyrights do you have the things that you need for this song to be you know to make you money and I said no and so that's when they started sending me things like go to C-Sack and here go and then that's when they started sending me so it was like I was like yo I didn't notice I could have made so much money but I had no idea I had no idea about it I'm excuse me I'm grilling all right as always you'll be able to find the full interview at the link in the description once that interview becomes active I'm gonna be dropping in a few days but I would love to know you guys perspective on this because we always hear about the fact that yes you should have all your legal things in order you need to educate yourself on these things but it's interesting to hear about it from a standpoint of somebody who didn't get screwed he did not get screwed no one did him wrong necessarily they just didn't know how to even find the guy right he didn't even know what was happening with the success of his track he had just had no idea so not having access to the information not even knowing what was going on and then kind of being dismissive anyway where it's already not something that you care as much about it just created interesting situation I would love to know first of all there's any of y'all in the comments that have a similar scenario put that in the comment section below because I think it's gonna help other people but other than that this isn't just reminder to sign up organizations like C-SAC and being mine all that good stuff but it's also just reminder that you should be tracking the success of your songs you have to figure out a way to centralize or do the best you can a lot of these platforms make it a lot easier these days and you know just having the knowledge you're more likely to do it these days but especially when you're offering something like downloads if you see a lot of downloads you have to figure out how do I look into this because when you think about his situation right once people download it now you have no idea what they're doing with it I could be the top DJ in my city somewhere across the world and have a huge following and playing this thing that I downloaded you no longer have any kind of data anything to track from it so just keep that stuff in mind this video the full interview is definitely something dope and worth checking out again this video is brought to you by brandmannetwork.com and if you like this video go ahead like but if you like it might as well share it and if you're not subscribed you know what to do hit that subscribe button


Everybody forced here ripping 20 22 Zenith photo and mosaic hobby 4 box number 12 random teams Find those anytime lane sports cards calm go ahead and get started now to mosaic hobbies or there's a Garrett Wilson Got Marvin Jones mosaic for the Jags red Jonathan Taylor Colts And blue mosaic montage Joe Burrow bangles It's a 99 mosaic rookie Devin Lloyd for the Jags silver rookie Trayvon Walker Jags Drake Lunge in introduction silver for the Falcons Jmo debut Mosaic Reggie Wayne for the Colts red mosaic rookie Charlie color Ravens We'll go on Hawaii. We'll go Hawaii illegal. That sounds like they're gonna win it. There's got something men's volleyball Thing I'm like good volleyball. It's pretty fun to watch like it's non-stop the Kenneth Walker there mosaic Matt staffer of the Rams. It's like getting in the tennis like Once you get those good ball is like, oh, yeah, this is awesome silver Antoine Winfield jr. Bucks Sounds like diving into like the stands it hit the ball back. That's always awesome man I remember slam ball London mosaic Jamal Williams lions blue mosaic Travis Hettian jr. Jags in 99 So I'm always always fun to watch silver center stage stop at Cowboys Blue mosaic auto James Lofton for the Packers number to 49 mosaic rookie Pickens Steelers Silver Rashad penny Seahawks Eagles legend Rashad penny Slam ball was always a good time to watch on like spike TV or something mosaic Aaron Rodgers national pride Packers red mosaic Kendrick born Pats Silver Derrick Henry mosaic Eli Manning for the Giants silver rookie Jaquan brisker Bears overdrive Ricky Williams Purdy base for the Niners with a rookie mosaic auto James Cook bills Was that cordial Patterson Falcons red Randy Moss Vikings? White mosaic rookie Ravens David O'Jabbo. Nice card there. That one's 25 at 25 the bookend silver Justin Jefferson national pride Vikings and straight fire Joe burrow silver or sincey pretty good first box there second mosaic hobby Sam Howell debut Lave we got mosaic rookie Dachshund Hill for the for the Bengals red mosaic Jim Kelly Bills and blue mosaic center stage is Eagles Michael Vick 1099 Eagles Michael Vick was a cookie trail on Burke's debut for the Titans silver Justin Jefferson Vikings and James Cook blue chips silver bills Prop this foot up on the media table and set it back towards the net for centers That sounds crazy mosaic Alan Robinson for the Rams red Sam Howell commanders rookie Phil Sims mosaic Montgomery Bears silver rookie Bo Melton Seahawks Debo Stairmasters It's your sponsor tomorrow everybody almanac ultra high-end multi-sport Jordan Brady Griffey Trout Kenny pick it rookie there mosaic rookie sauce gardener Jets Blue mosaic behind it Darius late Eagles It's a 99 Silver center stage Doug Williams Sounds like a wild environment illegal. Can you pick a debut? Red rookie Otto Scholar Thompson for the Dolphins Mosaic Jason Taylor dolphins Silver Denzel Ward Browns This guy keeps talking about it all How do we bring the party chat was a Damian Harris Pats red rookie breeze Hall debut for the Jets? See to a beat for stopping today Who do to a Oh, he met him. Yeah silver Michael Parsons montage cowboys switch jerseys. That's pretty cool Hey, maybe I'll do maybe I'll do that instead of moving. I'll just go to formula one race this weekend There you go. I wonder how expensive it'll be No, not much Leviska for the Jags silver Tristan works bucks a swagger mosaic Derek Henry Titans Super expensive Miami what super expensive? This is number one. It's a Miami number two. It's f1. So what's your lead? Yeah, rookie Otto mosaic Falcons aren't a lot of kids. Yeah, rookie mosaic dulcet Broncos red Lance Niners Purple rookie for the Cowboys Jake Ferguson Number to 49 silver rookie Carson strong birds And overdrive West Walker Patriots. What's up the red machine? What's happening machine? All right. See you at the photo time He's always talking trash everybody. It's it. It's trash talking capital of the world.  It's 100 buccaneers And mackerel speckle rpa first opted line to 50 for the Panthers. Oh, yes, sir All right, I'm a leafless rookie wave There's a danny gray fields I james and williams. Oh, not james. Williams yet. Sorry. That's uh, harrison smith I had the same thing happen twice in a row there to one night to 100 on the inscriptions auto And what a surprise this will be james and williams.  That's pretty sick looking Minnesota Minnesota It's everybody's favorite soda dc does dc fame Yeah, don't listen to illegal. Don't listen. It's trust me. Don't listen to illegal autos of epiketsie skyler thompson james cook james loft into 49 A jay mo on the rpa speckle rpa there. You got harrison smith devin white and matt corral on the speckle rpa first off the line That'll do it everybody. Thanks again on to the next football break


Let's start by the long term, or what we identified because I don't know what's going on. So minimizing self-delusion. But delusion. Right? So actually it came from, I think it's right. So it was like how to minimize the fact that you tweak your own protocol. And it goes together with having this, and you see that we kind of build up on this first idea of having a well-defined workflow. Then make it fully automated. So for that, define it with very amount of cerebellum. And finally, let's follow some benchmarking. On the benchmarking as a sign-out, you might have noticed that post-conveyor has now a specific issue about benchmarking. So it goes in this direction, which is nice. So minimizing self-delusion. So how about tweaking yourself your simulation to get what you want, and rely on defined workflow. And rely on defined workflow involved. As I said, find relevant observables to define and ensure that we agree on the same standard and parameter to be defined. So last year, actually it could go out almost everywhere. Okay, to do that, we already have some tools. I'm going to repeat myself a little bit because yesterday we already talked about them for the workflow, biophysicist base, empty trash. Biophysicist code didn't show up till now. So it's a work from Joe. So it's the name of the GitHub repo, right? Biophysicist code. So I would have one button and two buttons. But if you're not sure, you're at the end. What's that code after? Biophysicist code. It's just GitHub, biophysicist code. But it's a Python wrapper, particularly to ground access, which you said, run and analyze simulations. Okay. And a GUI. So we talked about reproducibility of protocols. But that's also something important. It's reproducibility of analysis. Because actually you might get the same trajectory as a protocol, but actually two ways to analyze it. And then coming to different conclusions. You could have a problem in your analysis or whatever. So reproducibility of analysis is really important. On tools like MD analysis could be the solution to kind of have a common workflow to do. So, reproducibility of analysis. Yes. So something important as well. When you compare your data on what you got from your simulation and you want to compare with some biological data, don't compare with interpreted data. Compare with raw data. Because we cannot challenge you on raw data. Raw data, raw data. You compare with raw data. That's fine. Interpreted data. Yeah, that's coming back to the reproducibility of analysis. You should know how it has been interpreted. So should we try to then reproduce diffraction patterns? Yeah. And only intensities, rather than distances. But how do we get experimentalists to share that? How do we get experimentalists to share the raw data? Oh, they have to. They have to use the QRRD. They've worked at all the information. It's now a strong meeting for a week. I agree. It's about the same as re-sharing trajectories, right? Yeah. But you can imagine if you do that, you will have also, you may put that in some databases and you'll only difference between the experiment and the result. You just understand. It's probably different experiments to be like. It's about linking data, right? Yeah. You can have experimental data in one repository and you can have simulations and so on. All these two are connected to each other. Maybe some people will understand what you are doing. Maybe you can understand. Yeah. There is some, like raw data available, which is just the problem is that it's difficult to read. Personally, I can definitely have. So for the NMR, I can read those things. But I remember when I was not able to read them. So you have to understand the experiment quite well often. That's a good idea anyway. If you want to simulate an experiment, it's a good idea to understand the experiment in the first place. Yeah, but then it's like you don't have time to learn how the air of each experiment. Because sometimes it takes that too. But yeah, maybe NMR is just, because that's probably the most difficult one. I agree. But there is data available. Should we say we should reach some kind of satisfactory level of understanding, maybe not be the expert in NMR and please have some idea about it. And we should learn to talk with the experiments a bit. Yes. This is the key. You have to be able to understand, like talk with them. I am absolutely for communication because I think that's what we're lacking. I mean, I don't want to go in the lab and do the experiments by myself. But for some reason, all these isolated companion groups and then we have experimental groups and then we try to locate each other's data and I think they should be probably more... Symmetry. Symmetry. Yeah. One thing, for example, I thought that some parameters NMR people extracted and I wanted to compare with my simulation and they didn't agree. I wanted to learn about the tasting assumptions which they made in deriving these parameters. So I asked them, what did they assume? And they said, nothing. What? Yes, it's called a model-free approach. It's actually a model. Yes. And so I said, there is no model-free approach in the world. There is a model which I'm doing. So let's talk about it. And in talking to them, I learned about their assumption and the funny thing was, they also, they were aware of their assumption. And so that was very fruitful. And it's terrible branding. It's so illiquid. One reason. So, what we consider as an easy win on the kind of work is if you want to make things reproducible, it should be accessible as well. So accessible repository, keepers and although we're naming it, that's not going to exist in tools, actually. And then luxuries, because it's complicated, we already highlighted yesterday, full interoperability of MD tools. So if everything can be just switched and what you are, you can just use, together, yeah, you will achieve an important disability quite quickly. So I put it there. Yes, since we are talking about data, just before, reliable experimental data for benchmarking. Because sometimes, so benchmarking is another thing that you can see if you want to compare our methods, I think we need to define a reliable benchmark set, which is related to biological questions that we want to answer. So not to need tests or whatever, or speed, but you know, delta, delta Gs or all the parameters which are in different data. You probably don't want to do after realization rates because that's going to be hard. But yeah, so that's, it's not something which is in our hands. So that's something we need experimental people also to do one. But it's often, especially if you do free energy kind of stuff, you are collecting all bunch of data from different groups and experimental methods and that's what the benchmarking is. And the D3R is only a good one. It's a good way of doing that because at least the data and D3R are coming from the single groups and they are all being measured in a consistent way. You all. So that's probably somewhere in the middle here. I think it's very important for the field. It's not too difficult, but we need to find what we can do and what to do. Link to that. We have more benchmarking. That's the standard benchmark set we have it. Benchmarks related to biological questions. You don't want to say I can't run half a nanosecond and I'm getting the same results. What is the question that you're answering half a nanosecond is your relationship. So that's probably that one. Annual benchmarking by a third party. Some of our course field developers are some good developers. I see here. So what you see by your space is going to do that because you can't run everything. I don't know. But you can't compete to do this. Yeah. But you want something then we need to define what you want to benchmark. You're going to do that but you can say every year there's a new version then we're going to put the benchmarks and publish it in some public site and that's it and people can do better. The major issue is that of course the developer will say but you didn't use software in the proper way because you had to tune that thing. So that's what you're doing. So is it important? Is it difficult? That's probably not so simple to arrange to make everyone angry. What do we have here? Understanding MD parameters. Mental study on MD parameters. So that's that was yours actually and we put it somewhere here in the middle. I think it's important. It's for sure important for the people I guess as developers you should understand what the parameters mean but the people using it do they understand what it means. So that's You're pushing a bit more to the way. Yeah. Very important. So, okay. And a bit lower? It's not that high it's a bit higher. You're still not proud. You're still not proud. You're still not proud. You're still not proud and probably this is also about so link to that I would say tutorials. So if you want people to understand things we should also provide tutorials so that's probably easy to do and I think it's important. It's not, I think it's important. Provide a list of sanity reality checklist. Check. So if someone set up so if you think of this, this and this probably before they run their microseconds that's not important. So that should be, I would say easy to do and it would say maybe wasting a lot of resources. Having obsessed many students it seems to be pretty difficult. Yeah. I guess maybe we should come with a list but that's so is there a good this is a checklist before you run your simulation? Making people to use it maybe. Yeah. But if I can but there are a lot of things here that are not simple because people say I've modeled the 30 my example I've modeled the 30 missing residues from that loop and then I'm going to run the microsecond simulation probably you're going to get garbage because you cannot model reliably 40 missing I mean. I was just going to say that like yesterday everything is important and difficult so that's what you had stuff that was more on the left on your chart because you had scaled it too. Yeah. So there was something about killing features so that was a video as well. I think So there is a lot of stuff that we have but how much do we move by now? So essentially killing features it was like killing things that we know are not working software. No, no, no. I think it was awesome by just reduced complexity even if things are working even if we know the physics is correct even if this isn't part of software even then you kill it if it's not used by the community and understood and so on. It's abused. Yeah. Yeah. So I guess that's easy to do on that importance as well. But there's also a known flaw with price call it shouldn't really still be used and especially if that's a price call without that price. So you flip up the safety cover right? Yeah. So there was someone in Twitter yesterday when some people are following the Twitter feed that we have and say okay we're speaking about formats and things that you say okay don't define a new format for simulation unless you remove another one. So all that new feature until we remove one. Two. Two. Two. Yeah. Let's see. Regression tests. Yeah. It's important that it's easy.  Two or something. But that doesn't mean that it's realized that you will reproduce your simulation. That's okay. Education in statistics. I think that goes with tutorials. Multiple starting points. So just teach people that they should not run a single simulation but they should ask for that. That's all about tutorials and education I guess. Minimum standards for reporting results. I think that came on yesterday also as well. So what is the there is no defined standards that the journal require. If you report a simulation provide this table with these parameters in there or these statistics. It's there for structure. It's there for crystal structure. Probably as well but there is nothing for standard situations. I think that's quite easy to do and it's also important. It will go in the training part here. Existing tools. So policy of space and the trash and the analysis they are even to facilitate things it doesn't mean that people are going to do less mistakes probably but they also for example there's a primal plug-in for relax. I don't know how today it is but and one question so there are examples for is it existing or is it probably there but do we need to store the software the compile software and the OS in a VL to be able to go back to that. I know. There is an initiative in the US called NMRbox.org where they actually doing that. So they got funding from NIH to keep software versions with a particular OS system and if you want to say I want to have version X running on this system then there is a copy of that VM available which you can start. So it's not only about archiving the software but actually executable and the OS. Of course for MD this will not allow you to re-run a microsecond of simulation if you only have a VM but you might at least try test a small bit of the code and that's the question mark. Challenges or it concerns difficulties what is the question which will lead us to that clear question that you want to answer before starting simulation is not always the case. I think there are still a lot of people running simulation but what can I do with this data that was mentioned. Can I add to that one because the word hypothesis was product really easy. I think that's a better way to put it. What is your question then to demand that one has to have a hypothesis. No, yeah, I agree. I think that hypothesis is somewhere in there already? No, no, no. People just mentioned it. Yeah, questions. I agree. The time for biologists you always have to have a hypothesis. It's psychology and now it's even worse. But now they're doing these pre-registrations which I think for us may not necessarily have a little bit of difficulty. Concerned difficulty available resources linked to repeats also for benchmarking so if you want to make it the recurring thing so do we have resources to do that and one which is probably linked to understanding parameters so it's a concern difficulty coupling of force fields software and MD parameters so it's in there but that's also a concern. So force field is often parameterized with a given version of a software on some given hardware and it doesn't mean that you're going to get the same results with the same force field when you move to the next version of the software on a different hardware. So how resilient are the force fields to the details that are there when you use them? You should really just ship the machine you use to do the studies. Yeah, right, that's impossible to do but we have to accept that there will be statistical differences but then how much do you accept? And maybe if there are a good benchmark you can say it doesn't matter because you still get within your 0.2EV error point. Actually you can very much go next. Keep really happy and use the tape. Give you some tape. I'm glad that we are reducing difficulties in today's session like in the previous session everything was mostly filed in the upper right corner and now I think we are making our a little bit easier seems that we are in the sphere of possible today. So we of course identified the usual set of existing tools for doing things that are relevant to the questions of how do we have reproducible analysis to be obviously how the analysis tool gets that are out there reasonably useful for their purpose. Daniel identified that there's an initiative called Popup to do with trying to build more general reproducible platforms for all kinds of computational sites not just the molecular simulation community. So make sure we don't reinvent those wheels go and use at least the ideas if not the infrastructure that's already available for us. Hopper? Hopper, yeah. That upsets me. EOPPR. That's awesome. All right, yeah. We identified that we need to have force field validation suites so that we understand whether the simulation tools we are using are actually fit for what they are designed for. Very often people produce a force field that's like, hey, here's a set of files go and use it with some piece of software and you'll get the results written on the page. People update these over time. We need much better understanding of whether our tools are actually doing what they were supposed to say in the box. Very often they haven't said on the box what they should do either. I think these are a good example of where a little force field fails too much. Sure. So you need to identify that the manufacturer tries to work on this set of prawns using this sort of experimental work on QM data on the ball with the protein. If the force field validation suite doesn't have examples of value of intrinsically disordered proteins, you have a much higher burden of proof in designing your study. Should we kind of aim for more specific force fields or maybe something that is more transferable? We need to know what we have and currently don't. People just go, ah, I used to use that. I think we need to identify where the problems are and then kind of think how to fix them. But I think I really don't even know where the problems are. So we identify that people would like to be able to do the same kind of data analysis on other systems, perhaps tweaking some of the parameters either in the simulation or in the analysis. That of course requires that people have shared the scripts that they use so that you have the opportunity to do that.  It's already up there somewhere. Yeah, I'm just looking for it. So there's interoperability, but we want to be able to run the same analysis again for studying products. The chain. Fully automated workflow, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 3, 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. I'm going we need to be able to share our input files so that people can actually see what it was. Very often there are defaults set up in the simulation packages or in the analysis packages. They change over time. We need to be able to go back and see the output of those packages to say, OK, the default now was this. If we don't have that available, all we have is one sentence in the paper that says, yes, we wrote Python scripts to do our analysis. Your work is essentially fabulous. Nobody can reproduce it. This should be rejected at review time. Speaking of which, individuals who are reviewing papers should be much more strict. Yes, that's a diplomatic word to you. I was thinking of a lot of what. We need to be strict with each other and accept that we do have reproducibility, reproducibility crisis in our community and part of that relies on policing each other. When you review a manuscript, have a look to see whether you could possibly reproduce this work with the data they have shared, but they haven't got their simulation input files but they haven't shared their analysis scripts. What they have done is to invent a bunch of numbers that could be random for all of you. I would argue that's the only thing we should be doing in reviews. That literally is our only job is to make sure that another competent person could reproduce what was in the manuscript. This is an easy win. We should all be doing this. Getting the whole community to do it is a bit hard, so we acknowledge that there are two parts to it. But of course the more frequently you get a review response saying I could not possibly reproduce what you have made available to better then people will start building that into their experimental designs and the planning of their projects and hopefully those people will grow up and then do the reviewers and they will do the same sorts of things. Community change takes time. The best ways to change people's mind is to wait for people who can't change their minds to die. Can I ask you to point to something saying here's what you should be doing instead. Yes, that's that also. As a community we need to put together best practices and publish them in journals like live columns. We know what we should do. We need to have both experimental designs that permit us to gather statistics and to understand how to analyze them appropriately. That connects to something we already had. That of course connects to how we got documentation and training available for people so that we understand that just doing a single simulation for 200 microseconds and then it's like, oh look, this really isn't enough. Can they work in force fields or do you have to get how do you assess whether your experimental design was potentially competent. So let's go into the next one, are the tools we're using actually fit for the experiment we're trying to use them for? Most people adopt the methodology they're going to use from a high. They're going to do what the postdoc tells them, they're going to do what the PI tells them, they're shifting labs, they don't understand what the expectations of the simulation community are around. The particular kinds of simulations they're thinking are running actually operate. Very often people design an experiment without understanding it. What would I require from my analysis package or my simulation packaging order that I can actually conduct in my experiment? What data should I require from that particular version of the particular hardware with the particular parameter choices that I'm making? How can I know that this combination of choices and software that I've been using, how do I know that they are fit for any particular purpose? One way this problem manifests is that when we update versions of our analysis tools and software packages, nobody takes them up for the first couple of years because they're all, I'm worried about there being a bug. One of my responses to that is how do you know you don't currently have a bug when it's affecting your results? Most people have actually grapple with other tools I'm using likely to produce in some sort of reproducible or validated way the ones that I'm actually looking to sample. If you already have that, then it's very straightforward to run them again on the updated version of the software and take advantage of the new hardware, new performance, and the mixed bugs in the end time. If you ever thought of that with your tools of fit, you just generated random numbers. Should we maybe put that like, what is the question? Because I think it's also, what is the question and again, what are the best tools to address this question? And careful design of experiments is something that connects on from that we need to understand what we are trying to observe. It is valid to have a hypothesis free walk in the park but it is relatively unlikely that your look just ran on trajectory to see what would happen. Very unlikely to be able to defend the conclusion that the dynamics of this particular membrane prudence diffusion is this. You need to design some other experiment. Having worked out that these things may be interesting that you need to do a broader study to actually say something about the time scale of the dynamics that you saw hints on in your first exploratory simulation. I mean to know in advance whether you're an exploratory or something that's designed to produce some sort of quantitative result. Both the value that you don't just get to the right directory and then you make the other. So, everything's doing good. I'm going to counter that because we have a really, really interesting discussion at the beginning of ours which really focused on why we run it in simulations. What is the value we're trying to extract from the simulation? And actually the value we're trying to extract might be a question of is an experimentalist coming up to you and saying I have all of these possible mutations I can perform to this protein. Which one of these mutations are the ones I should look at first? Or I have all of these different ligands, modifications to this ligand that binds well. Which one of these modifications should I try first? Synthesize to actually go. And the computational chemist basically has to make that decision relatively quickly. They're not going to invest a huge cost to actually give that answer because the value is I'm going to choose these versus these. And actually that is a combination of simulation. It's to provide inspiration and it's actually a combination of simulation plus intuition. So what you tend to find is that real computational chemists working in the field, the best one I saw was a med chemist who basically was great at designing drugs in her company. And what she would do is she'd run very quick simulations of dynamics. She'd look at the binding sites. She would see where the protein was moving and then because she had so much inbuilt she would say, aha, that looks like that might be a pocket about to open. I think you should begin functionalizing the ligand on this side. And that was the result she gave back. Functionalizing on that side more often than not gave drugs which found better and she did a fantastic medicinal chemist who was highly found by her company. But actually that decision of going here or another decision of make these mutants in this residue, that decision is not a reproducible decision but it's extremely valuable decision because it actually helps the experimentalists get to where they're going. And what this really came back to for us is what can you really expect from a simulation? So there are simulations you can perform and there are real calculatable observable properties which you can link back to experiment and which you can use as benchmarks to move the field forward. But actually that range of things we can calculate is so far less than what the experimentalists are asking us to actually give them. And that's why there is this goal for the reproducibility. Because if you're trying to do what the experimentalists want you are really running hero simulations where the thing you're trying to calculate is so far beyond the auto-correlation time of your simulation there's no way you can statistically converge it even if you run a thousand replicas. So actually these things you're being asked to do to run from the experimentalists maybe we should stop trying to justify our intuition based decisions by running these very complicated simulations but we should actually step back and say let's use some quick and dirty methods for that and accept that we can't calculate those things. So the thing we actually mentioned we've all got condensed down into one thing which was we need to actually set out best practices for planning simulations and be able to detect poor conversions. And actually work out what is it we can calculate. And so let me put this kind of in the middle and then the other thing we said. So what is actually by what is the thing you're able to calculate. So we basically have a protein where we know the motion of this protein is on the seconds time scale. I'm sorry for using the example but if this motion is happening on the seconds time scale and the only thing you can simulate is on 10 nanoseconds or 100 nanoseconds on the seconds time scale you need to go through several motions probably 50 of those motions to be able to get any statistical convergence of that. No way can you run a 50 second simulation of this protein and use a field to actually have the confidence to go to experimental colleagues and say what you're asking me to do I cannot rigorously give you. But if you're asking me for inspiration and say what things out of this selection which one would I go to using my intuition and my knowledge of simulation I can give you an answer but it's not going to be a great answer. And I think we need to then actually say go back to the quick and dirty methods and say actually this isn't reproducible but this is the combination of intuition plus experiment. It helps a lot to go to single molecule experiments because it's easier to simulate single molecules than to simulate the same single molecule. And the single molecule field they are very much aware of these averaging and problems and challenges because they have the same thing so it's much easier to talk to them. And then experiments contain more information. I feel I've kind of started with protein and they're going down to single molecules which I've discussed in one because it's also a lot of fun but at least you can converge things. And actually one of the things you learn in the single molecule field is you learn how to autocorrelation times.  And nothing you can do no matter how many times I run the simulation I'm still in the calibration. And so what we need is whether or not it's two objects automatically calculate the autocorrelation time that you're looking at. So as the simulation can tell you sorry there was no point in running that simulation which is a whole thing safer. It's just the way it is. In terms of easy wins we do need to trust our tools and through so many times in this workshop our tools don't actually give us the same answers. So different MD packages, different simulation tools they give us different energies for the same force field in quotes and actually a force field is a combination of the package plus the implementation of that force field. And so a really easy thing to do is basically if we did collect a benchmark suite of molecules which have been parameterized in lots of different force fields and we made it easy in our packages so there's a little option that just said calculate energy and print the energy out Amber doesn't do this it's really annoying to get that single point energy because you've got to do one time step then back it up and everything else but if we can actually make it to every single simulation package you could give it a molecular file input in its own format it just prints an energy out we could then do energy benchmarking and at least be able to say all of our packages will give the same energy for this molecule parameterized with channel 35 so they get the same energies for this molecule parameterized with Amber that would be a really quick and easy thing to do we kind of begun that with bias in space so I think it's something we could actually help to develop and that was automated comparison of serious snapshot energies and forces for codes, for different force fields we then went moving on from there actually we need to do automated evaluation of the methods for physical problems once we have defined things we can actually calculate in the code so in the single molecule field it's hydration for the energies if there is anything like that in the protein field and we could really come up with something that you could actually calculate that would be useful but if there's something like that we could automatically run the simulation and collect that observable out and then just see how different codes or different methods how close they could get to the experimental observable that would be really useful and it would help us feel along so it's easy to automate it and one thing that's difficult to actually work on what it is we're trying to get that then moved on to this one which is basically the automated sensitivity analysis to program settings because we have chaotic systems so we know we make any change in the simulation parameter it's going to change everything in terms of the simulation and then statistical dynamics will mean actually that's okay because statistical analysis takes care of the system and it will give us physical observables but actually how sensitive are our simulations to those changes because the problem with statistical dynamics basically if you run it for an infinite time you'll get the average and it will work but if we change the settings of the program how long is the infinite time change so it will converge more slowly with some settings it will converge more quickly with other settings and so the average you calculate really will depend on what settings you use so sensitivity analysis will be really useful Can I be here? Yeah, I will say this defined reproducible observables so actually defining them would be really good automatic benchmarking of force fields because of the properties I kind of think we've already said that one as well we need to define automated workflows for reproducible computing observables we keep hitting the same thing we need things we can observe then almost like challenging the field and give us workflows where you're calculating it once we use the workflow we're going to run them basically validates that we get the same answers as you and then automatically run them lots of times but to really make all of this work we need to facilitate data sharing and discovery to enable the comparison of different simulations so actually people sharing their data is the first step and that publishing everything so the end of my life this was brilliant, it was a great tour because actually just people publishing everything live into the field we just start publishing our simulations as we're running them rather than three months or six months after the paper was published I think that would be a very easy thing to do I would have high potential investment and then existing tools D3R sample blind challenges blind challenges where somebody goes out and says I have this thing, I want you to calculate which is a real experimental thing and here is some basic input everyone, I don't care how you do it calculate it, blind and we'll see who wins so this is what the D3R challenges for we're approaching the binding for energy sample challenges as well more of these challenges would be good maybe as a community you could work out what is your challenge from ElectroDynamics I come from the binding community so I don't know what it is but what is your challenge for every day what are you trying to reproduce and then make the blind challenge a competition out of it and then make sure everything is published and then my life is just fantastic Well thank you all Any comments? Can I? The calculation of the correlation times you put on the easy side Where is that? I'd like to challenge that and I think you cannot calculate the calculation times but we'll even find out whether you are converged or not in MD because you may leave a complete large mention of phase phase unexcored, you will never detect that in the MD, you have no chance to detect that, that's the dangerous thing It's better than nothing But it's not as good as having multiple starting points which is very easy on the scale Okay so I think what we got again in this session unlike other sessions is that we have an easy and important quarter of the course built I think that the thing is that a lot of things we can already change right now without actually implementing models in any particular software or something what kind of comes across we need to define actually best practices I think that's what we are obviously sorely lacking and to define what are we doing and how do we want to do it essentially and for that we need probably better training, more tutorials we should let people know what are the minimum standards I guess when you are trying to analyze data what is expected of you because at the moment I don't think there is a clear consensus that we can calculate RMSD but why? why did that become a particular variable that everyone is calculating so again going back to the challenge why did you calculate this why did you run this simulation what are you trying to do what is the most appropriate way of doing that and that brings us to the more complicated thing which is again obviously there is a need of automation whether it's workflow or benchmarking but I think the clear goal is that we need to automate as many things as possible because then it removes this probably I think it removes a possibility of introducing more errors because we always all make mistakes and if you leave to people it's probably more likely there will be more mistakes to introduce and I think probably if we automate things it will be easier to actually track down mistakes and errors because then we can go back and actually accurately track down every step that was done and try to figure out where things went wrong speaking of that it's also clear that we should actually treat simulations and I mean in a way we shouldn't treat force fields and software packages separately we should actually similar to what QM when people report we use this level of theory with this basis set I think we should use this force field with this software version but that should actually be really clear that it's one thing that gives you this particular result I mean we do report we use this software package version but we should really make it even like reporting standard like Ember 99 FSB slash Ember 12 0.0 I don't know something like that we can think about it and I guess if we make these things automated it will be challenging probably some things will be easier some things will be harder we definitely need to start sharing the data if we want to get any kind of useful information in terms of what kind of parameters people are using to run simulations what values do they choose for thermostats, for barestats what kind of values they use for their electrostatics so on and so forth how to do it I guess maybe we came closer a little bit maybe we didn't I guess we'll see I think for the time being we can only use the existing repository we can all dump at least the input files and maybe at least the initial coordinates and maybe even last and maybe even like 5 frames from the entire simulation that's not really too heavy in terms of data it's really easy but no PDFs I mean again going back to QM they also share their minimized geometries the PDF which is not perfect but at least they share it and we don't share our PDFs we share stupid figures and movies I mean considering how much time we spend staring at the simulation and looking at things from various angles this is horrible we should really use the ability of computers and these interactive interfaces if we can and we can but we are not doing it again going back to the most difficult side as always community how to actually change people how to make people to do things better how to train people to review actually papers there is really this interesting initially called pre-review where postdocs and PhD students are trained to do peer review and they are done online but they are actually peer reviewing I think bio-archive papers what to focus on when you are peer reviewing papers and how to be constructively critical rather than offensively or something else so maybe we can also create guidelines how to review an MD paper what are the minimum requirements what are the minimum reporting standards what is the data you can provide is it what all the analysis creates what is this minimum package that every MD paper should have and ship together with your main publication we have tools to analyze and maybe we can also ask if someone is willing to pay the responsibility of maintaining MD trench we have challenges and we also have some experimental data but maybe we could also for someone team up again maybe this is more for this collaborative approach and ask experimental people to design some kind of experimental set that would be actually really easy to compare to MD maybe we can come up with a different set for different functions providing free energy maybe some other structural properties NMR or FRED or DR there are many things that are out there and maybe we can select a bunch of proteins for which we have structure these things on multiple residues or something I don't know there are probably ways to do it but someone has to do it and it's not again not exciting if one plan your nature papers so how do we get there so NMR lipids database content also experimental data but now it's on the lipids but I'm not working to find the correct parameters to use for proteins NMR lipids is like trying to go but there's lipids and then you can have proteins and you can have DNA and you have RNA the data set probably explode pretty quickly and that's just NMR but we probably want to test against multiple so we have NMR scattering that but the most important question is that you have to have good data like what is good data so for lipids we have this too and for the proteins I'm working on so we are trying to find what's the best I think that's probably the challenge so you said something very important you won't get a nature paper from that and that's something which I think really clicks our field than the other fields because none of those things which we all seem to agree on are very important to get as a nature paper so how can we go around that how can we break this dictatorship I should almost say of having to publish in nature and science and so on that's the only thing actually the nature papers are not important what is important is to get money it's important to get salary so I don't care if I get paper to the nature probably I care no this is what people think that's perfect unfortunately no it's not I checked five years of very good funding to do NMR with this project I didn't have any time for papers without any vision to see that I would publish time with paper I'm not saying I have a set correlation but if you have two nature papers in a row that enhance it's a change it's about queuing the probability is this the fact is it like do you have data for this I have heard I have heard people claiming that there is data which shows opposite it's not necessarily us that's the problem maybe not even funding but it's the trainees so if we have young trainees that are embarking on academic careers right now they will lead a nature seller science paper to get a decent R1 job but this is I have seen people arguing with the data opposite and I just want to say this is what everybody thinks and also one thing if everybody thinks like we are the scientists okay we are the ones who review the applications if we think like that it becomes self like it if we think like that it's gonna be like that if we stop thinking like that it's not gonna be like that so we are the ones who decide in that so we have to remember that once you enter in that state of mind it's really difficult to get out we still congratulate each other when we publish in high because it's a great work see on twitter oh this person published here and everyone said like oh amazing congratulations when you publish people tell you there is no this euphoria when you publish in a lesser impact I mean it exists it's present it's not in our heads but we are designing the scientists who are designing that our senior colleagues at our universities are the ones who are designing it we have to persuade them but we are going to fail let's retire first maybe we find some changes because that's a hot topic of course but if you are in a search comedy or an appointment comedy or in a fund agency comedy you've got a pile of 100 series for example with publicists and you have to sort out 10 for a short list in a cover of weekend and at that point it becomes very hard not to pay attention to these higher chance because you are very much tempted you cannot read all the public pensions simply not that's a problem doesn't make any sense this means that the editors of nature and science are actually the people who are designing that's the best part I was interested in the last part let's move away there is something we can change and we might fix scientific publishing can I just say again the UK is better but the UK most institutions have signed up to the San Francisco Declaration which says they do not use impact factor to judge academic progression the next thing we've done is in our research council now exploring blind peer review where the actual person your track record is now not seen by the reviewers of the grant it can't be far enough it can't it's anonymising as much as possible we actually ran a trial of it and they were not funded in Oxford and so there is a strong movement going on in the UK and I hope in the rest of the world where we basically get rid of this thing we've signed up to the Plan S which is the method which basically pushes open standards I think it's a really important thing San Francisco Declaration Plan S and a move to blind refereeing and blind re-referring of grants it only comes in the UK because it was demanded by the research community because the research councils have to follow the research community and they want it from your funders yes so there is power but people are unwilling to voice their opinions we could change things but we are not so so I guess what are the concerns and difficulties I guess in a way who will do it there is a lot of this is not glamorous for when you do some and let's face it it's boring for some people but there is a lot of benchmarking a lot of repeating it's a lot of repetitive work we can try to automate as much as possible but at the beginning it could be a lot of also just like digging in the tunnels all these sorts of so who will do it one research group take the bridge two, three who will do all this work maybe one more comment on that one I sounded maybe already negative so it may be true that you don't get a science on Asia paper but what is also true is most of these work create citations which last very long and are very high in numbers and I think to get nature and science out of business much more important is to pay attention to citations rather than to journals and there we have a benefit and that may be a very good sense of us to invest time in this yes so I think this should be also maybe a really a distributed project so we invite many people to actually contribute so if everyone just does like a little part then it becomes also easier and less taxing so you don't have to come a lot of dedicate all of your time and I think probably live comms is also a very good place to publish these results so we don't have to I think live comms is a really great place to publish these like best practices that we are like we can update, we can change we can modify and we can add things that are actually important to us and I think methods are really important because that's something that's transferable proteins will change, you have to behave in a different way and sure if you capture that for your event it will be amazing and interesting to see but at the end of the day I think what we need to do is not make the methods reliable and trustworthy so when you have a problem you can say I have this method and it's really good to solve these problems but now I think we are still agreeing with dark a little bit so maybe we should turn on some white and see where the holes, put holes not be folding to them


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com battling some allergies here, so apologize for being a little sniffly on this video 2021 Panini Newar basketball four box picker team number seven is coming at you big. Thanks everybody right here for getting in on the action Thank you for buying your team straight up Sean with that double last spot mojo two couple big teams there timber wolves and New York Knicks We also did we only had to do one number block randomizer for only one team and that was the the Charlotte Hornets One out we did the randomizer in a separate video. So if you're looking for that check out our video list Printing out the results right now There it is. Let's say a number block break Just that one single team a lot of times we got multiple teams involved in a serial number break, but this time Just just the one the big one There's the case of noir right there fresh case full case Good luck. We do have one more case up on the site right now That's in single digits. I think we may be able to To get most of those teams sold out one more box here Steph on the cover here and good luck. All right, we're gonna lead off with the under eight 70 out of 99 You seem in the NBA finals That'll be for Gavin in the Suns Jason Tatum 61 out of 99 for Brian F and the Celtics Siege of a column six out of 25 Jay and Portland and there's Chris Mullen accidentally Jonah saying what were you saying? Sorry actually Chris the wrong button That'll go to Chris Mullen is gonna is a Warriors edition. I'll be for Joshua 37 out of 75 SGA. Shea Gilgis Alexander For Chris Lombardo and OKC and we got two shot rookie Jersey seven out of 25 Isaiah Stewart And Jane McDaniels, that'll be a randomizer between those two teams. I've got a redemption right here behind that is Jordan pool 27 out of 99 reigning Knights Joshua Now Jason kid 70 42 out of 99 that'll be for Brooklyn. That's gonna go to Steve Jota saying Stefanix gonna Steve Spikes gonna hit a $7,000 card, I hope so Jason kids is a good start golden God a graph And then we got Jersey and auto Five out of 99 RJ Hampton. Let's go that redemption. It's gonna be Matt Daniels with Denver. All right. Good luck. We got rookie patch autographs color card 369 That's gonna be It's a J. Oh Joe Jaspie No, Josh Josh Green Rookie patch autographs color Josh Green and Josh Green is a Dallas Madry Yes double check Tommy with the Mavs. That was just box one. Here's box two next one More box are better than last year. It's still a little difficult here We've got another redemption on the bottom. All right, we got Gordon Hayward 89 out of 99 that's Charlotte 9 That's gonna be for Joshua. We've got a Chris Paul 74 out of 99 Jason take 11 out of 25. He had some nice moments last year Colby with the Rockets I'd love to see a honest in here. That'd be nice. He's hiding in here Donovan Mitchell 42 out of 99 Tommy with the jazz Jumbo material Nicola Yolkic 64 out of 99 Matt Daniels with Denver Rookie Jumbo material Patrick William 7 out of 10. That's a nice patch That's Hilmer with the Chicago Bulls The bulls I got Robert Woodard 46 out of 99 three-color patch and autograph for Sacramento Joshua Edelitz with the Kings Another thin card here. That's Bernard King award-winning autographs He was the 1984-85 scoring champion New York Knicks Sean. Oh now one more and then the redemption We got Isaac Acoro 77 out of 99 two-color jersey and autograph Chris Lombardo All right the redemption good luck we've got freeze frame signatures card 18 D Oh Dominique Wilkins Freeze frame signatures Dominique Wilkins. Wow Now, I think he only did he only played for one team maybe Now he played for a number of team. This has to be Hawks version, right? They wouldn't put him as a as a Celtic Or Orlando magic they wouldn't do that, right? Double check. I'm gonna go to group rate checklist calm gonna go to more basketball Checklists by team Wilkins Card 18 of course in Atlanta Hawk That'll be for mark s and a free top loader as well. Yeah, definitely a hawk I don't know sometimes when he will get goofy and be like hey, here's Clippers edition of Dominique Wilkins Go by the checklist as always Right. Hey, some of you may know that out of fives and under get the train whistle There's a two out of five triple J Jaren Jackson jr. And that's for Memphis. That's gonna be For Sean Maddox Sean all aboard the big hit express Tyler hero 38 out of 99 Chris Lombardo with the heat Heat is on Tray young two out of ten mark with the Hawks Terry Rose here 72 out of 75 Hornets are the number block team Hornets to is gonna be for Matthew Shearer Chomo material Larry dance student 57 out of 99 For Chris This is for you 91 out of 99 icons memorabilia KG Timberwolves edition that's gonna go to Sean. Oh, you got a thin auto in here. That's Peyton Pritchard Rookie auto for Brian and the Celtics. We've got a Trey Jones jersey and autograph 10 out of 99 for the Spurs It's for AJ in San Antonio. We have a freeze-frame signature Chris Mullen 76 out of 99 nice autograph for Joshua and the Warriors and the last one here is gonna be Whoo, that's nice spotlight signatures Tyrese Hallibur 60 out of 99 and that'll be for Joshua Edelits who picked up the king straight up Congrats All right final box coming up Artboard dust on the table. All right final box ladies and gentlemen. Good luck Thanks everyone for getting in The next pick your team. I believe is already in single digits We may be able to fill that up straight up without a filler or maybe just the Hornets. I don't know. We'll see But keep chipping away at it Thanks, everybody 12 out of 99 John Wall Rockets that'll be for Colby John Collins for out of 99 for the Hawks Another John Collins. It's time six out of 25 He's got the out of 99 and then the out of 25 He's a restricted for you or something. They're gonna have to re-sign him They took the interim coach tag off freelance coach, I believe Andrew Wigan 62 out of 99 Joshua with the Warriors Chris Middleton 32 out of 75 for Jay and the Bucks He's been playing well. We'll see when the finals we have Zion Williamson. Oh and a thin card behind there Zion 35 out of 99 Box office relic for the Pells Paul the Pelicans We've got private signings autograph Grant Riller rookie auto Now I don't think this one is numbered Some of them can be but this particular one is not numbered so we'll randomize it to one person in that In that Charlotte number block group all right few more to go fingers crossed everybody Alex English Denver Nuggets Matt Daniels We got PJ Washington Jr. 84 out of 99. I love these sneaker spotlight signatures So that's Charlotte for Charlotte number four Matthew Shearer and last but not least we have a nice two-color jersey And autograph 52 out of 99 and manual quickly. He had a really great season Very nice one for Sean.  There's a lot of upside for this guy a manual quickly All right, and that is that boys and girls. Let's do a couple randomizers We'll do that dual relic then we'll do the autograph So let's go back to random org got a couple new lists set up So for this the dual relic that's between Detroit And Minnesota and everyone in this number block group here has a shot at that non numbered Charlotte autographs the Grant Riller private signings auto Let's roll it. Let's randomize for both lists. We're gonna randomize it nine times five and a four. Good luck one two three four five six seven eight And ninth and final time team on top is Detroit after nine that is gonna be Tommy with the pistons Let's flip back here five and a four nine times four This list here one two three four five six seven eight And ninth and final time after nine. It's Matthew Shearer on top after nine Congrats to you. You'll get the Grant Riller private signings autograph Thanks, everybody another noir in the store on jaspyscasebreaks.com go and check it out I'm Joe and I'll break more of this with you later tonight. Bye


Novorossiysk, Russia's Black Sea naval base, after a year in German hands, falls to the Soviets. From Caucasian foothills surrounding the city on three sides, Russian heavy artillery bombards Novorossiysk for four days and nights. Katushas, Russia's rocket guns hurl their deadly message upon the enemy. He finds Russia's Black Sea fleet standing offshore. Landing barges filled with Russian marines attack from the sea, cutting off the Nazis' last avenue of escape. From the shore side they charge in, veterans of Odessa and Sevastopol, blasting the Nazis out house by house. Then the Soviet flag flies over Novorossiysk, gateway to the Caucasus. The world's first airplane, created by Orville Wright and his brother Wilbur, is about to take flight. Here at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, this primitive kite made aviation history. With this first catapulted takeoff, man's age-old dream of flight became a reality. Washington, 40 years later. For the year's greatest contribution to American aviation, General Arnold, Chief of the Army Air Forces, is honored with Orville Wright, who in 1911 taught Arnold to fly. From Mr. Wright, General Arnold receives the coveted Collier Trophy. Fleets of United Nations planes fly the world's airways on missions of war. Tomorrow, theirs will be the mission of peace. Christmas at home for the President of the United States. At his New York State residence, Mr. Roosevelt spends a quiet Christmas day with his wife, their sons and daughters, and seven grandchildren. With the President are two of his four sons. The others are in distant theaters of war. Reunion, the first Christmas at home in 10 years. Youngsters who wish to follow the sea get their first training in the Merchant Navy's Cadet Corps. Learn to master the sea-going hammock, and attend classes in elementary navigation. Learn to master the sea-going hammock. Australia, a great maritime nation, will use these boys to man the liners and freighters of tomorrow. They finally learn to master the sea-going hammock. Prime Minister Winston Churchill spends his 69th birthday at Tehran, surrounded by British and Indian troops. He is presented with gifts of rare Persian craftsmanship by regiments stationed in the Middle East. Shortly after these pictures were made, Mr. Churchill was stricken with pneumonia. Now, well on the road to recovery, he is back in the fight. Dramatic scenes from the South Pacific. United States bombers taking aboard their deadly cargoes. Nightly preparations for the incessant mass air attacks upon the Japanese in this theater of war. Final instructions, briefing the airmen, call it. Then targets mapped, watches checked, they set out upon their mission. Billy Mitchell Bombers, B-25s are on the line. These are the ships that surprised the Japs in those first smashing raids on Ravel. The cruise mascot hopes he is to be taken along, but not this time. Taking off at early dawn, the powerful ships soar along. American air power paving the way for ground forces under General MacArthur. These are the sky fleets that are smashing Jap bases on New Guinea and New Britain. They loose their bombs upon the Jap infested jungle. Mission accomplished, they head for home. The allies ever growing sky fleets bringing ever nearer the day of doom for Japan's dreams of conquest.


Hi, I'm Dr. Lori Glaze and I'm the Director of NASA's Planetary Science Division. As a planetary scientist, one of the most important things we try to understand is how our solar system formed and how it has evolved over time. And asteroids are a really important part of telling that story. They're remnants and relics of that early formation of the solar system. And so NASA has put together a small fleet of spacecraft that are flying to multiple different types of asteroids scattered throughout the solar system to tell us and how to piece together that early story about the solar system formation. Of course, Osiris-Rex is an important part of that story and one of the most important things about the Osiris-Rex mission is it's going to collect a sample and bring it back to Earth, which is going to allow us to study that asteroid and that sample for many, many generations to come. It's really exciting. Come along with us.


Good morning. Bonjour tout le monde. Thank you, Jen, for your intro, but also for your incredibly hard work here in Pickering. I want to thank as well Ryan Turnbull and Mark Holland, local MPs for being here. Thank you Ali and the extraordinary team you have here for welcoming us today, and thank you all for being out here. It's great to be back in Pickering. I want to begin by taking a moment to offer my deepest condolences to the loved ones of the two South Simcoe police officers killed in the line of duty. I know the families of people who serve are always worried for their loved ones as they step forward to serve their communities to keep the rest of us safe and I can't imagine what those families are going through. Please know that we stand with you as families. We stand with all those who step up to serve and protect us all and we will continue to be there to support those families and their colleagues and the entire community of Innisfil as they mourn this loss. I want to offer my deepest condolences to the families of the officers killed in Innisfil as they mourn this loss. It's a terrible tragedy for the families and for the community. We are going to be there to support them in these extremely difficult times. Also before I begin, I want to take a moment to talk about Ukraine and the escalation of illegal and unjustifiable attacks by Vladimir Putin. During the weekend, people have been horrified to see strikes against civilians. Canada continues to condemn these brutal and reprehensible behaviors and we continue to support the defense of Ukraine against Russian invaders. This morning, Minister Anand announced an additional $47 million in military aid to Ukraine, including artillery ammunition, winter clothing and drone cameras. Canada continues to stand up for human rights and the rule of law around the world alongside our allies because we know that without it we risk squandering the decades of peace that led to the prosperity so many have benefited from. It was a key subject of conversation yesterday when I gathered virtually with the six other leaders of the G7 to talk about the worsening attacks by Russia and how as a world we can continue to push back not just in defense of Ukraine not just in defense of the democratic principles that underpin all of our countries but also in support for the millions of millions of citizens around the world who are being impacted by indirect ways by Vladimir Putin's illegal and unjustifiable actions. That's a part of what brings me today to pickering here in the GTA where people are feeling the effects of Putin's war firsthand as food and energy prices go up adding to the global inflation crisis. The rising cost of living has been hitting families hard. My colleagues and I have been hearing it directly from Canadians. I had the chance to talk to Tracy and her two kids earlier talked about the fact that it's getting harder and harder to buy fresh fruits and groceries that the prices are going up for just about everything. We know families across Canada are working hard to get through this pandemic and let's be clear Canadian families did the right thing during these past years. They stayed home when they had to. They looked after each other. We got vaccinated as Canadians to some of the highest levels of anywhere in the world which is a good reminder with cold and flu season coming up and the return of possible next waves of the pandemic. It's important that people get up to date in their boosters. We have new updated vaccines that will give us that extra shot to keep us protected through the winter and make sure that we're continuing to do the things we love through this winter even as the pandemic continues. But it's been a hard couple of years and I know people are tired and now like Tracy I know a lot of people are worried about making ends meet. Our government is here to help people who need it the most. Folks in the middle class and people working hard to join it. That's why the very first thing we did in parliament this fall was to put forward the cost of living relief act bills to help make life more affordable. This relief would double the GST credit for six months delivering up to an additional $467 to a family with two kids this fall. It's going to help but 11 million families across the country with more money in their pockets just as a time as people are looking at this winter with worry that the bills are going to be heavy. Also families under 12 families with kids under 12 who don't have dental coverage could get up to $1,300 per child over the next two years to help make sure that they can stay healthy and go to the dentist. And 1.8 million renters low-income renters across the country would benefit from a $500 one-time top-up to the Canada Housing Benefit. These are all concrete measures that we're debating right now in the house that we're hoping to move forward on and we call on all parliamentarians to support the GST credit as it moves to the Senate but also support for dental, support for rental. These are things that will make a difference in the lives of Canadians right across the country. Canadians and parliamentarians need to work together to deliver it. We're also helping families with young children who are already saving thousands of dollars a year thanks to our plan to deliver $10 a day child care, including many families here in Ontario who are beginning to see rebates in their child care fees. Those are hundreds, even thousands of dollars that makes a real difference at a time where every penny counts as we're supporting our young families. And on Friday, the next climate action incentive quarterly rebate payments are going out. That's the fact that the price on pollution we brought in a number of years ago actually returns more money to the average families. And that quarterly payment is going out this Friday here in Ontario, the fall rebate for a family of four is $186, part of the $745 total that you'll get this year in Ontario. Payment goes to Canadians who live in provinces with the federal price on pollution, that is Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta. And again, for the vast majority of families, for the hardworking families of the middle class and those working hard to join it, you get more money back from that price on pollution than you pay on average. We've worked hard to ensure that no one in our economy was left behind during the pandemic, and so our economy could come roaring back. And now Canada has one of the strongest job recoveries in the G7, and we have a really low unemployment rate. But we know that's not enough. We know we need to keep working hard for Canadians. We need to keep making sure that as the economy grows, everyone benefits, not just those at the top. That's why we'll keep investing in programs that lift people up and build a future where everyone sees and has opportunity. That's why we're focused on an economy that works for all Canadians. Merci beaucoup tout le monde.