Ladies and gentlemen, very warm welcome and rise and shine to the module 149, Establishing Culture of the Corporate Entrepreneurship, but before that, always remember, human first, human first, human first, as it is, as it is the age of digitization, as it is the age of AI technology, robotic, robust engineering, and this will increase. And I am seeing this trend that when you started with FEDEC tailors and they started working on automation, I studied their psychology on automation, I understood from their study that they were the sons of a feudal and they did not get much importance in the judgment. So, they thought that whenever I grew up, how would I get such a mechanism? Because of which, I have my respect, and if I have it, but in my eyes, I have my respect because no one asks me. If I was well-versed and I did not have inferiority complexes, then it is possible that I would stand by them, but I would not get any respect while I was with my father, so I would not be feeling inferior to them. And then, when they grew up, they developed a system in the automobile, then they created the culture of big jobs, then they started an automated system on automation. Automation has reduced the human interaction, meaning that as much as possible, in a machine, the human will look less and less, and the technology has advanced, I do not have any harm in the advancement of technology, I believe in technology and technology is the other word you should do computation, but you do not have to do the next computer, where is its respect? But they started the culture from there, and in the industrialization, the automation that came, it was automation, now it is complete digitization, now it is robotics, now it is in a digitalization, it is a technique, it is a process, it is a sequence, it is a digitalization, then it will have time, it will be a digitalization. So, the whole process has the same architecture and the whole process of the new software is all the same, but in the production, the whole process of the huge infrastructure, how much it can serve it is very human-themed like it does. Now, if I was having a big-than-a-long discussion that, how much is it? I am having a deep discussion of how much does it have to be built and how much is it going to be built? Why does it need to be built and what is the development and central planning in the long-term? You have to take that from the profit, and the rest of the people only hate it, and their love for it is only money, revenue. And that reward doesn't have to be given, it won't take the break to eat, it won't take the time to go somewhere, and you have to take it from the reward. Because it's giving you revenue. Here in Pakistan, because rewards are expensive, they can't take this much, so people are making rewards. And that comes from your master-slave concept in businesses. Now I'm telling you about this. We need to end this culture. We have to respect human and human capital. Moving on, what are the baseline on the eight major domains of the corporate entrepreneurship discussed? Previously, we now move on to the discussion, the falling contributing factors that make up as a successful culture of the corporate entrepreneurship, which is? Number one, organization operates on the frontiers of technology. One, new ideas encouraged, trial and error encouraged, failure allowed. Failure allowed. Please do allow failure. Google says, do, try, check, act, fail, start. Fail, start.   You have to fail. And there's no big deal in this that you fail in an idea.  You didn't have to fix anything on it. You tried it, you couldn't. Now come back again. Then try it, then try it, then try it, then try it. There must be a life in new ideas. It can't be that without human interaction and human training and human teaching, you start teaching with a video. So you can learn, you can learn like you are listening to me. You will learn, you will apply. But that doesn't mean that you can't take understanding from someone else. So we have to allow, we must have to allow ourselves or to others to make the failures, to make the errors. Now, no opportunities, parameters, resource available and accessible, multi-discipline team approach, appropriate reward system, incentivization and reward system is very different. Maximum organization in which, in Pakistan, I call it state organization, in Pakistan there is no concern on culture of even corporate. Corporate culture is not even there. If corporate was there, we would have discussed it. In this, it is incentivized in the reward system. It is a knowledge, greed based system. In the greed based system, you can bring in a lot of people, you can register them on the app, you can get them on this, you can do the Parchi system, you can do the support system of India. And every person here is made a Vijaymalya. So everybody is wanted to try a shortcut and having a shortcut. Everybody is Vijaymalya. And you sell the Parchi in Kingfisher and you go ahead selling the Parchi. You sell the Chit and make support in the name of Chit. So this culture is prevailing now. Everybody is attracting it. So the greed based system is different and the reward based system is entirely different. Now, I understand sponsoring champions available. Sport of the top management is must, vision must be shared. The reflection of the idea must be shared to the last or the even of the gatekeeper, even of your guard, even of your company, whoever works in your company, help us. If the vision is not clear, your organization culture is not aligned.  Don't do or don't exercise corporate. Moving on, inter-cooperation, sustaining the culture of innovation. Here, today's the Intel innovation program focuses on what? So internet connectivity, research and development, affordability and financing, education and IT skills, awareness and promotions. Then is the Intel Appoop, a developer program, Intel Capital, Intel Entrepreneurship Challenge, Learn Technology and Entrepreneurship, Intel Software Network, Tech, Intel World Ahead program. So these are the different powerful programs under the founder leadership and the late under Andrew Grove. So Intel had turned its corporate culture into a powerful strategic advantage to inter-program initiatives, rest-taking and confrontation of ideas. So this culture become so ingrained and effective that at times it was leased as powerful as formal strategic planning process. So as I told you everything, the development of connectivity, of financing, of promotion, of skill enhancement, of digitization, all of this is a special culture. So these are the powerful culture a sustaining culture of the innovation. So innovation for all these things plus your human capital involvement is must. As I said, be with the digitization but don't minus your human capital. Thank you.


Well, probably one of the most visible changes, quite frankly, is the explosion, the mushrooming, the growth in the number of people in need of urgent assistance. The Global Humanitarian Overview that's a joint appeal coordinated by the United Nations together with partners, the Food and Agriculture Organization is part of it, launched at the end of last year, an appeal to support some 230 million people. I mean, these numbers, quite frankly, are eye-watering and it tells us that we need to do not just more, but we need to do it better. There's a number of key lessons, but I'd like to focus on the resilience that exists at the household level and in communities and the remarkable ability of people, even in the most extreme disaster situations, to cope, to survive, to adapt. For us as FAO, a key message that we want to share with everyone and that we need to share with everyone is the fact that the vast majority of people in need of humanitarian assistance are to be found in rural areas. These are farmers. These are people who are attached to the land or their fisherfolk, right? And so, that's the starting point we need for our emergency response. Fundamentally, it's about putting resources in the hands of affected farming families. This means, for example, seeds, tools, technical assistance to allow them to plant for a coming season. It means keeping animals alive during a drought period or during a winter and we do that through provision of emergency animal feed, even medical assistance, veterinary assistance to animals to keep these precious assets alive. Often it's also about just putting cash in the hands of people. I mean, these activities together are usually what people need to get through a difficult period when we're talking about farming families, for example. I was just in Afghanistan just over a month ago, just last year alone, FAO, with some 21 implementing partners, directly supported more than 6 million Afghans, 6 million rural Afghans with time-sensitive intervention. So we've been keeping animals alive through the winter season. We provide cash support to female-headed households, marginalised families that even don't have access to a lot of land. FAO was pivotal and successfully leading in support of a number of governments, which was preventing, responding to and preventing this major desert locust outbreak that hit much of the Horn of Africa, Eastern Africa and indeed beyond. And early detection treatment allows us to respond, allowed us to respond at scale. This was a response over two years that cost $230 million. It saved at least $1.8 billion in crop losses. Makes sense. That's until the disaster happens before you respond, from a human dignity perspective. Who wouldn't rather be able to protect themselves, their families, rather than have to wait for a handout or wait for assistance after a disaster took place? FAO's strengths in humanitarian response comes from its development background. We are grounded in communities and countries. We have long-standing relationships over decades with ministries of agriculture. If we distribute seed in a country, we know it's the right seed because we've been improving it over years. People in food crisis contact, more than 70% of them live in rural communities. These farmers are fisherfolk and yet only 4% of all of the humanitarian response funding that goes into those protracted emergency settings supports agriculture. So you have a majority of the population relying on farming and a minority of the funding to support agricultural response activities. And this just simply doesn't make sense. So this attention to livelihoods and emergencies is absolutely indispensable. It's a cost-effective way to respond, it's a dignified way to support individuals affected by disasters. Not only do we provide them a means for families to eat in the weeks and months ahead, we strengthen their resilience against future disasters. We also as FAO respond after what we call sudden onset events after, for example, the tragedy that we've seen now of the earthquake in Turkey that's impacting both Turkey and Syria. This is also part of what we do and it needs a time-sensitive response, but the majority of what FAO does in emergency response is actually year-on-year crisis response. This is where we need to be working and this is where we need to work differently. FAO is already planning and supporting members in the preparations to respond to the potential impacts of an El Nino phenomenon. So it's not yet clear and confirmed that there will in fact be an El Nino later in the year but the probabilities are growing and we know through hard-won experience how this then manifests itself in different parts of the world and so again from an anticipatory perspective we're already working ahead with partners and with governments to make sure that vulnerable communities are best placed to withstand these impacts. FAO and other partners in the UN system back in late 2021 were calling for a scaled up response because we saw that rains were failing and indeed that communities and vulnerable households were under stress. Unfortunately what we're seeing in the Horn of Africa is an example of early warning analysis and anticipatory action calls going really unheeded. Somalia is a really good example of where a time-sensitive agricultural intervention would enable a family to be able to stay on their land, to not be forced to displace to a camp outside of an urban setting. Our experience in Somalia and elsewhere tells us that if people's animals are still alive, if they have crops in the ground, if they've been able to plant seeds, if there are things to tend, more often than not they will not be forced to flee elsewhere and so this is the most effective and most dignified response that we can possibly note. This is a region made up of multiple countries with different zones but again these fundamental lessons about supporting farming households where they are. Supporting pastoralists with the type of support they need. Adequate attention to livestock, for example, is not something that's really in focus in the way that it should be in collective humanitarian responses. FAO is a technical agency with a unique mandate within the UN system and the way we work in conflict settings is grounded in our technical expertise. Let me give an example from Tigray. Also, this last year, there was a lot of concern about the threat of famine. FAO, of course, was working in Tigray and working across Ethiopia before the conflict and the fighting erupted and in a context where there was conflict unfolding, people were still able to grow. Farmers in Tigray, with support from FAO and others, produced 900,000 metric tons of food. So equivalent to six to seven months of the food requirements of that region. I think there are some really important lessons collectively that I hope we've learnt when it comes to the reality of the interface between humans and animals and the natural environment. These diseases that can move between animals and humans can challenge food chains but can also potentially impact humans directly as well. FAO works day in and day out with other parts of the UN system and other partners on this space of animal health. In the last 12 months, FAO prevented and responded to some 990 significant outbreaks of zoonosis. If you didn't hear much about it, it's because FAO did a good job. This prevention of the next COVID, I think, is really, really important. We're very focused on famine prevention at the moment and the work that we do as FAO plays an absolutely indispensable role within the famine prevention space. So this isn't just about a handout. This is about doing something much more impactful.


Hey guys, what is up? Welcome to my channel. For today's video, I'm going to be doing my bottom three products from my top three favorite brands. So if you want to see that, then just keep watching. Hi guys, if you're new here, my name is Morgan. I am a product knowledge enthusiast. I just love knowing anything and everything about all the makeup on the market and sharing my thoughts with you guys. So why inspired this video you might or might not be asking is recently, I did a top five products for my top five favorite brands. This video was originally inspired from Michelle Wong who started this series. And a lot of you guys asked me to cover my least favorite products from those top three favorite brands. So I'm going to do that. I did my top five favorite products in that video. I'm narrowing it down to my bottom three for the same three brands. You can really see which ones I do not like. If you're new to my channel, these are my three favorite brands. I've tried the majority of the products from each of the lines. So I do consider myself to be pretty well versed in these. So let's get into it. We're going to go in the same order as last time. So I'm going to start off with Natasha Denona. So the first product that I'm going to talk about is the only product that I do not physically have for today, but I did want to mention it because I just remember being so appalled by this product. Now, please keep in mind that if you love these products, that is totally fine. These are just my own personal opinions. My opinion is not the end all be all. It's fun to do a little bit of gossip here and there, you know, I'm a pretty positive channel, I would say for the most part, but I like to throw in a nice negative video here and there because it's just fun. Anyways, so this Transfix Matte Concealer from Natasha Denona was one of the first times that I dove into the complexion products from Natasha Denona and I have to admit complexion really isn't Natasha's strong suit here and this concealer was a no go for me. It is so matte and so drying underneath the eyes. I don't normally return makeup, but I did return that one. It was that bad and I do believe she's either reformulating or taking this off of her product list because it is 50% off on so forth and I personally would not recommend it even for that price. So dry, so heavy under the eyes. There was nothing about that concealer that I liked. So that's why it's in my bottom three products from her. The next product is a fairly new product and there's mixed opinions on this but I just cannot get into her puff paints. These are liquid blushes. You're also supposed to be able to use these on the lips. They do not work on my lips at the very least and I will admit this shade right here, the deepest shade, it's not that bad. I actually like this one. However, this should not work for my skin tone. This should be really, really dark for my skin tone, great for deep skin tones. The first two shades right here disappear into nothing. I like the consistency of this because it does feel very hydrating. However, every time I put this on, I can't see it. It like disappears into my skin. When I layer it, I can get a little bit of color but it disappears. Like I don't see too much color on my cheek right now. It's on this cheek. It just disappears. If not right away, then over time. It doesn't last. I don't get the color that I want and while I do like this color right here, this is so much darker than the others too. That just goes to show you how sheer it is. I do think that there is a market for this. However, you know, if you're very fair or you really aren't into blush, I think you will like this. But I can't quite decide if it removes my foundation or not because I feel like when I put this on, I can see my skin underneath. It doesn't necessarily break up the foundation, but I feel like it removes it because I can see my skin underneath. So anyways, I've been really disappointed with these products. I do not do not like these, do not necessarily recommend them. And I just think it's not one of her better releases. Alrighty, and for my last product from Natasha Denona that I am just not a fan of, these are order products and Natasha has gotten the message that the general consensus on these is that people don't like these. I'm going to count them as one, but these are her first two mini palettes. I think nowadays that she's launching much better mini palettes and the quality is really great. But I really think she tried to skimp us with these and reduce the quality on these because they are not up to par with her full size palette formula. So today I'm actually wearing a mini lila. It's been a while since I use this, so I wanted to use it and I really like the colors on here. Like I'm not going to lie, this looks so pretty. However, the road to get this look took forever.  They are patchy. They take forever to blend. The shimmers are a little bit disappointing. The shimmers, particularly in the mini sunset, are quite underwhelming. So I'm not saying you can't get a pretty look from these, but if you are looking to pick these up and she might have discontinued this, I remember these being on a heavy discount. But if you're going to get her mini palettes, do not get the mini lila or the mini sunset because these are the ones where she was testing the waters to see if she could get away with it. She couldn't because soon after these two, most, if not all of them, have been the same quality as her bigger palette, but she couldn't get one past me. I knew that these were different. Something was off with these and like I said, I really love the look of the mini lila and the colors here, but it took me forever to blend out these purple shades and even then I'm looking and I'm a little bit dissatisfied with my blend. This one, because they're neutrals, it's a little bit easier to work with, but nonetheless, you can just tell these shimmers, they aren't there. They aren't the Natasha Denona formula. You aren't getting what you're paying for. So that is why these are the least favorite. They were just so disappointing to me. Like it's kind of a letdown from the brand, you know, because it just doesn't feel right. It feels a little bit icky that they were trying to release these not in the same formula. I'm happy that she did change that, but yeah, don't recommend these, but the other ones completely fine. So don't worry. Okay, we are going to move on to Pat McGrath. Arguably my favorite brand and I have to say, looking through their product lists and seeing what I have. Pat McGrath was a tough one for the most part. Even if I don't love the products, she comes out with really solid products. Really nothing from the brand is bad, which is very surprising, but I had to pick my least three favorite products that I've tried. And I just want to get the lips out of the way because I know my lips. They look super crusty and dry and they feel so uncomfortable. So the first product that I need to talk about and address the situation that's on my face are the liquid lipsticks from Pat McGrath. So dry. It's a very thin formula, which normally I really enjoy thinner liquid lipstick formulas, but even though she got it so thin, which it got all over my teeth, by the way, because it is so thin, they still emphasize the texture on the lips. You can see every single line on the lips. And I'm 25. Like, a lip product should not make my lips look like this. And they don't feel very comfortable to me. I just, I don't like them. I really like the colors. I have divine rose and divine nude, which is what I'm wearing, but it's so uncomfortable for me and it looks terrible. They just seep into lines. Not a good liquid lipstick in my opinion. This is probably my least favorite product. She's ever come out with, which is a shame because she actually had a different liquid lipstick formula during the very beginning of her brand that I really liked. These are not good. Okay. I am going to talk about another lip product and you guys are going to fight me to the nail about this because I know so many of you love this product. But to me, it is not worth it. It is her fetish lip balms. I actually don't have one. I had to search in my mom's collection. These are $39 and the only expensive lip balm that I will pay for are the Laneige ones. Those really work and I'm not saying that this lip balm doesn't work. I'm just saying it's pretty generic to me and it's not worth the $39. I feel like I'm paying for the packaging. The lip balm itself, it's decent, but it doesn't stand out to me more than any other lip moisturizer that I have. So I went to my mom's collection because I knew she had it and I think my mom really likes it. So hers is all emptied right here. This is from the Star Wars collection. She probably is just keeping it for the packaging because I mean, come on, but no, I can't. I don't see the hype for $39. It's just not worth it to me. And the last product that I have from Pat McGrath, this is a product that I feel like I drag my feet to use. I just don't ever want to use it. The experience for some reason, it's not pleasant to me and this is sold out on her website, but it is still currently on her website. It's from a holiday collection. This is one of her first tries at a single highlighter. She has her trio, which I also am not in love with, but she had that out and she had her cream highlight. So this was her first like single powder highlight and it comes in super expensive heavy packaging. It was very odd. This product was made in Taiwan and most of her products are made in Italy. Not that that means too much, but it was really expensive. But the packaging is super luxe. But this highlight to me, it's good, but it's not great. We paid a price where the product should be great. It's this weird putty formula and it just, I feel like at times I can look chunky on the skin if it's not paired with the right foundation. It's just not worth the price. I was not moved by this highlight. I never really have been that into it. She has since redeemed herself and she's come out with a couple really nice, smoothing highlights that apply so easily on the skin. This one doesn't glide on the skin. It emphasizes texture in an unclattering way. Just to me, this was not it. I was very shocked when she came out with a formulation like this because I feel like at this point, the technology for highlight formulations, it's much more advanced than it was back in the day. A lot of brands have a lot of great highlight formulas and this one was a big step back. I definitely expected better from her because like I said, pretty much everything she comes out with is really, really good. This was not for me. I did not like this. Let me put on some gloss, y'all. I am like struggling. I'm going to use some Fenty mauve wipes. Let's go really good together. And I have a zit right here. So that's what that bump is. All right, we're going to move on to the last and final brand, which is Charlotte Tilbury. Now, Charlotte Tilbury, I will admit I said if I could only use one brand for the rest of my life, it definitely would be Charlotte Tilbury. But she comes out with so many products. Like there definitely are does in the line. So we're first going to talk about something that I actually just recently talked about in my life. I do not like her magical way liquid concealer. It's another one of those concealers where I feel like the product just swims in the fine line under my eyes and it ages me. It's a drying concealer and it just doesn't stay put. It just, you can see the dryness under the eyes right here. And not only does it sink into those fine lines, but it makes them look super dry and really enhanced. Very, very unflattering. So this is almost gone. I've used so much of it just because every time I do a Charlotte Tilbury video, which is quite frequent, honestly, I use this just because and I'm trying to use it up and I'm almost there, you guys. I use it today. I look a little bit more wrinkly than I normally would because of this concealer. I've heard a lot of people who like this. I just, I can't get into it. It just doesn't work for me. No matter what I use with it, no matter what I use to set with it, even if I don't set it, it's okay. The next product that I have is one that she recently relaunched. I don't know if she reformulated it in the relaunch, but I don't know why she relaunched it because I didn't like it. So this is kind of a warning to those of you who wanted to get this when you saw that it was relaunched. This is the Pillow Talk Lip and Cheek Glow and it's like a lip gloss basically in this little compact, but it's supposed to be for the cheeks and the lips. First of all, I did a demo on the lips. It does not look good on the lips. It doesn't do anything for the lips. It doesn't even feel hydrating on the lips. It felt drying when I put it on. So whatever, but also as a cheek color, it's so sticky and it feels like a gloss on the cheek. Since I've been wearing it, it has dried down. Don't get me wrong, but I feel like the color also disappears. It's much more pigmented than the Natasha Denona ones. Don't get me wrong, like you only need one application and it looks good, but then your cheek is sticky. Your hair sticks to your cheek and then over time I noticed just as I put other products over top, like my setting powder, all of that, the color has disappeared. And depending on what you have underneath, this does break up my foundation and makes my makeup look really messy and not good. So I don't know if she's reformulated it because this is from the original launch, but I was not feeling this product. Still not feeling it. Pulled it out today. I haven't used it in a while and I'm like, I think I liked it more than when I first tried it because today for some reason it didn't break up my foundation, but I still don't like it. Okay, the very last product from Charlotte Tilbury. I have a couple of different quads. We're counting them as one, but there's two specifically that I would not recommend. So the first one is a style of quads that she does and it is her palette of pops. If you see palette of pops, I mean some people like this formula personally, I would advise you to go in the other direction and pick a different formulation, but these are all basically her lid toppers in one quad. She's reformulated I think because it seems in the newer quads that they aren't as bad, but these get super hard panned. They still work with the hard pan, but you know, the aesthetics, it bothers me. These also don't stay on the eyelid. They just get all over the face. I just, I don't see a point in these. They also kind of look the same on the lid because they're lid toppers. So there's no need to pay 50 something dollars for four glittery shades that look the same and you have to put other eyeshadows on your eyes anyways. I don't see the value. The formulation isn't there in my opinion. I don't mind when a quad has one pop shade because it does add something to a look. You add your crease colors, lid colors, whatever you take one of the pop shade. It does add that extra sparkle. It's nice. But is it worth it to get four of them in one quad? No, don't recommend it. The other one is a specific color. It's really disappointing because I really do like her quads, but I do notice that there are inconsistencies in the quads and this is probably the worst one that I've tried. This is the Vintage Vampe. I find this one to look very, very patchy and the quality is just not there. The pigmentation just isn't there. These shades do not look like what they do on the eyelid. They're sheer, but they're still very patchy. I just don't like this one every time I wear it. I feel like my eyeshadow looks really unblended and like I don't know what I'm doing. So there's something about this quad that's just not good. If you are looking at your little break quad, stay away from any palette of pops and from the Vintage Vampe. And there we have it. Those are my least favorite products from my most favorite brands. I hope you guys enjoyed this and found this helpful. Like I said, if you like these products, it's okay. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion. I just had a lot of requests for this one and I thought it sounded fun and I did have fun. That's all I have for today's video. I hope you guys enjoyed it. If you aren't subscribed to my channel already, I would love it if you would consider taking the time to do so. And I will see you all in the next one. Bye, guys. Have a good one.


curveball a lot tonight what went into the decision-making process to lean on that pitch a little bit more just to slow them down a little bit take them off the fastball a decision made by you and Larry or Austin just the way he's calling the game you know something we talked about you know just kind of breaking it bring it in a little bit more into the game just slow them down take them off the fastball and just mix it up a little bit speed wise curve aside what did you see as the biggest difference last outing against the Red Sox to this one didn't make as many mistakes you know and the ones that I did make they didn't put over the fence you know JD hit a pretty good pitch in the first inning not a great pitch to him you know he hits that pitch pretty well down and in but I just missed my spot but other than that I felt like I threw the ball pretty well and I thought Roman did a great job behind the plate you know great home run by Klaver there to pick me up after that two runs in the first inning kind of put us back on top and the boys competed all night it's great W you mentioned glaver does that just inject life to you when you go back out there on the mound now that you have the lead yeah big time you know that was huge to get those four runs and kind of put us back on top and try to lock it down from there and the bullpen did a great job coming in and shutting them down and getting us to win decision to use a breaking ball more is that game planning for this that particular lineup or is that more about you trying to get back to something that's important for you in the past yeah I think that's just me in general you know I need to have something a little slower so not everything's hard you know because the cutter slider whatever you want to call us pretty hard as well so to have that curve ball being a little slower just kind of mixes speeds a little bit better and keeps them off balance a little more all year you've thrown it a bit less than last year is it something going forward you want to use it more heavily yeah I think so you know I think that we'll definitely try to work that in a bit more to just slow guys down and like I said just mix speeds what's the difference in the feeling if the walking off down two runs at the bottom of the first to come back on the mount top of the second up to runs yeah it's great no huge huge home run by the way but right there kind of injected some energy into our team and I just really got us fired up moving forward yeah honestly I don't have an answer for that right now I it's just something that's been going on this year I'm continually trying to figure out that thing that's going on for me but just I'll just keep on battling going into this third I mean the opponents that squared up your fast one more than you used to is that because of the dependents like the not using enough of the other pitches or why do you think that might be the case possibly you know that could be it they're just kind of always looking hard I think also just locating I need to locate it better now I get hit better spots instead of leaving it over the middle of play yeah down down and yes yeah it just it stayed over the middle of play a little bit too much and you know he's pretty good at hitting that down and pitch obviously they didn't add any pitchers to the trade deadline this play kind of looking into that what do you think of but you know this is the group that you guys will use and go with you know we're really confident in this the guys in this room you know and we've also got guys coming back that will be like making trades you know we've got several you know we're hoping to get back towards the end of the season Dylan as well you know Jean Carlo you know there's a lot of guys that are coming going to be coming back here and making a big difference and I think that the guys in this room can get it done you know we're a very talented group and very motivated and I have full confidence in the guys in this room


Don Larson lent his touch to the festivities on Yogi Barrett Day on July 18th 1999 recreating the last out of his perfect game by throwing the ceremonial first pitch to Yogi. The duo witnessed more perfection that day when David Cohn entered baseball immortality with his perfect game and David as I offer you condolences on the loss of a friend and Don Larson it seems fitting as we welcome everyone back on Hot Stove to ask you about that day it's momentous enough to pitch a perfect game but how surreal was it for you to know that Yogi and Don Larson were both in the building. Well it is remarkable Jack I think that the further removed I get from that day the more appreciative I am of everything that's around that day what it meant and that signature moment to be connected with Yogi and Don is something that I'll forever be thankful for and I know David Wells goes the same way I think David Wells obviously through his perfect game in 1998 and he kind of brought Don Larson back at the spotlight because they both went to Point Loma High School but to have Don throughout the first pitch that day was something I'll never forget. That forever connection between yourself and Wells and Larson forged an interesting friendship can you describe for us what your friendship was like with Larson. You know it really did grow from from from that day forward I know that there was an as I said before there was an obvious connection between Larson and Wells and San Diego and the Point Loma High School connection but we really did grow much closer over the years we did a lot of appearances together we did a lot of autograph sessions together I think we have we all took pride in the fact that we were the kind of the three amigos the three that had thrown perfect games in the old Yankee Stadium and that that was something that would could never be replicated because you know there may be a Yankee that throws a perfect game in the future but I think we all three felt connected that that we did it in the old stadium and we all had great deference to Don and we called him the Godfather because he was the world series he was the one who did it in the world series he's still the only one to ever do it in a world series game so we kind of refer to him as our Godfather. David when we talk about Yankee legends it's Ruth and Garreg and Mantle and DiMaggio and Yogi. Larson though was a Yankee legend in his own way because of that one memorable day how did you see him live up to that and observe his place in history. It really is kind of the underdog story that you know that Don Larson wasn't wasn't your your prototypical Yankee legend that we see on Yankeeography so often. He was he was a unique character and he was a flawed guy like Wells and myself I think we all kind of reveled in that that we all were kind of imperfect in our own ways but he was a great story in that he really did rise to the moment that you can't do that in baseball it could have a signature moment at one game and make it stand a singular game achievement that could stand the test of time and I think he really appreciated that and he probably more than anybody thought about that game every day for the rest of his life up until the end of his life I think he admitted it and he talked about it and how he could just imagine you know when we were sitting around having a having a couple of pops together and then he would tell some stories from that day that it was almost like he was reliving the moment and that's how much that moment meant to him and you know it really it really does speak to you know that anything can happen on any given day in a baseball game and Don Washer is probably the best example of that. You talk about reliving the moment and there were so many neat moments that went with his perfect game right up until the fact that he didn't know he was pitching that day until he saw a baseball in his cleat when you had conversations with him were there other elements of that day that he told you about that just made you shake your head. He really talked about that he didn't understand what was going on that day and I know he said this on the record a few times but you know it was he didn't really know what a perfect game was. Nobody really knew there weren't that many perfect games. There certainly weren't that many up to that point. I think it was over 30 years in the major league since the last perfect game and so he didn't really even understand what was going on. I think we both related that the nervousness that you feel in the later innings and the obvious superstition that baseball players have and it's sometimes you're the loneliest guy in the dugout and you need somebody to talk to you and having talked to Don Larson kind of inspired me to actually say something to David Wells during his perfect game in 1998 and for me during my perfect game it was Chilly Davis and it wasn't even profound it was just something to break the ice something funny that can break the ice and you know with Chilly Davis it was him telling me he was a catcher in the minor leagues that you know he could warm me up in between any and that's what he did he actually warmed me up in between any one particular inning and I was a little leery to throw the ball very hard to him but he kind of joked with me and said you know what I was a catcher and you know that that's how nervous you are as a pitcher in that situation and nobody will talk to you and all the superstitions and I think we all three related to that probably better than anybody. So when you and Wells and Larson would get together I'm sure that you're telling your old baseball stories I'm sure there was a little bit of trash talking as well. Did Larson ever critique your perfect game and or your pitching style? Did he ever give you any advice about your own pitching? Not really I think we know the thing we talked about more than anything were mechanics because I was enamored with with Don Larson and the mechanical changes he made right right before that game he was really the first pitcher to use the no wind up delivery he almost had a quick pitch delivery that caught a lot of players off guard a lot of batters off guard. I know in that particular game his rhythm was so fast he would just get the ball and throw it with no wind up almost just a stride towards home played in a release of the baseball and you know I think we talked more about that about mechanics and style and different pictures that he admired from Whitey Ford to different great pitchers that he pitched against even Bob Gibson through that era. So I think it was more about mechanics as opposed to any critique of style or pitches that we threw. Pretty amazing that day as he was pitching a perfect game Whitey Ford was warming up in the bullpen that was one element of the day that I remember but David I want to throw you a little bit of a curveball here. If you were picking an all time Yankee team of the players you'd like to spend some time with not necessarily the greatest Yankee players in history but the guys you'd like to hang out with. How quickly are you adding Don Larson to your team. Yeah. Don would be one of the first guys drafted because he likes to have a good time and he likes to talk. He's a social guy. He really likes being around people and I think that's what made his perfect game so remarkable because he was he didn't like being alone. That's one of the reasons why he didn't stay in his hotel room at night. He needed to get out and see people and be able to be out and about. But you know that he was very similar to David Wells in that regard. David Wells was one of those guys that you just couldn't keep in his hotel room. But do him no good. He needed to be out and about. He needed to be socializing. So you know Don Larson would be right on top of that list. You know along with Moose Tower and Hank Bauer right up there as well. Well David listen once again our condolences and thanks for sharing some of your insight about


So this is why this can be a nine-mark question. There's a lot of facets to this. There's a lot of things that you can talk about. So let's look at one example and pick the first of these, the availability of reagents. So one important process is the Solvay process. And the goal product of the Solvay process is sodium carbonate. Now sodium carbonate is produced through a series of reactions that start with sodium chloride, which is usually in the form of brine, which is very salty water. So it's water with a high salt concentration and the ocean can be a very simple source of that. And then the other important reactant is calcium carbonate. And calcium carbonate's simplest source is limestone. So this could be from a quarry or some other source where we have to basically cut out the limestone. And then we've got to move that limestone to our site. When we're talking about the availability of reagents, we're talking about where is this going to come from? Where is this going to come from? Now one interesting thing about the Solvay process, and this is a big process. So it's not something that happens just in this one single step. There's a number of different steps associated with this. But as I said, we have to give you these things. We're not going to expect you to know about the Solvay process. But if we gave you this and we said ammonia is also used as part of the process of producing sodium carbonate, but it is something that is recycled. So we do need to source it initially. But once we have a supply of ammonia, we can then recycle it and recover the ammonia at different steps through this process. And of course, I mentioned earlier the Haber process and Haber process is the process that allows us to produce ammonia through the reaction of nitrogen and hydrogen. So if we were going to locate our industry, we'd have to consider factors like is there a limestone mine close by? Is there a source of salt water? If there isn't, how are we going to get that? And where am I going to source my ammonia? The ammonia is a small lower component of what we want here. And it's going to be recycled. So it's probably lower on the importance scale. Water is going to be a liquid. We're going to have to try and move it as a liquid. Whereas the limestone, we're going to have to move as a solid. So we think about our transport systems, trains, trucks, planes, what's going to be the easiest thing. And it's obviously easier for us to be able to move large amounts of solid limestone than it will be large amounts of liquid salt water. We're going to have to keep moving a lot of that in order to produce it in the quantities that we need. So often what you'll find is solvay plants are located somewhere close to the coast, somewhere within excess of the ocean, but also somewhere that's not too far from a limestone mine. And then if there happens to be a Haber plant somewhere nearby, that's allowing the production of ammonia as well. Well, that's perfect in terms of the availability of reagents. So we just need to think where are these different reactants coming from? Are there any catalysts? Is there anything else that we need that's going to be part of this process as one of the key factors that we're looking at for our chemical synthesis? But there are more and we'll cover those on future videos. Thanks for watching.


Hi everyone this is Jason here from the Nathaniel School of Music. In this lesson we are basically going to look at the pretty much the world's most popular rhythm what we call as the pop clave or what they call as the thresio right. Basically a group of three beats which come together in a very very interesting assortment to create just something which will make you get off your chair and start moving or dancing may not be dancing in specific but some form of movement will happen when you hear something like this right. You'll find it in pretty much all the modern day pop hits of the last I guess 10 to 15 years you could say right. So I'm just going to call it the thresio for this lesson or the pop clave. We first look at how we are going to count the thresio then we've developed a nice little chord pattern which is quite popular so you'll already find that it sounds similar to stuff you've been listening to you know if you listen to modern day pop music then we look at what the left hand is going to do with some roots thirds fifths develop some stuff there some interesting left hand arpeggios as well which we'll work on and then we are going to look at the contrast the main point of today's lesson is to show you the contrast between what I'm calling as the slow thresio and the fast thresio or the normal groovy EDM thresio if you will right. This is something which I found is not covered that often even we've done a couple of lessons on the thresio rhythm in the past we've done I think two or three using arpeggios using the hits using a variety of songs also but in this lesson I want to focus a little bit more attention towards the speeds of the thresio even though it's the same tempo one speed will access eighth notes and the other speed will access sixteenth notes more on that obviously in the lesson if you are a beginner you're going to find this useful if you are an advanced player or an intermediate player you need to follow along till the very end and even if you're a beginner there may be some things which you can't play but maybe there'll be things which could inspire you train your year improve your hand coordination for sure understand chord inversions understand a few aspects of music which are very rudimentary very important very essential and so on right guys so before we get started it'll be great if you could subscribe and more importantly there is a bell icon next to the subscribe somewhere there hit that as well because we do a lot of lessons a lot of regular lessons over the weeks and the months and we've been averaging quite a few you know at least over the past two three years so make sure to hit the bell because whenever we release a new lesson you'll be notified and immediately you can watch it or save it to watch later or download it or use whichever feature of youtube you enjoy right so let's get cracking so first off let's count the thresio the way i do this is first off let's do it with eighth notes so the way it works will be one and two and three and four and it's over four beats three and four and one and two and three so the first thing would be the hit points which would be one and two and three and four and one and two and three and four the one and of the two on of the four one and of the two on of the four so this is using an eighth note flavor now if you have to divide this into more units we call them as 16th notes essentially we divide the pulse into four so that would be one right four one and two and a so a good way to count it popularly would be one and a two and a three and a four one so same hit points thresio one and two and a three and a four one and two and a three and a four yeah no one and a two and a three and it's essential also to count it initially use any form of counting but the one I am sharing is like a standard so might as well use that right. So, with the quicker speed and you tap it maybe for today's lesson with your right hand because I am we are going to generate some chord hits in the right hand okay more on the left hand maybe in another video. So you go 1-e-n-2-e-n-3-n-4-e-n- this is the thresio 1-e-n-2-e-n-chikapoom-chikapoom-chikapoom-chikapoom-chikapoom-chikapoom-chikapoom-chikapoom Now, if we slow this down 1-e-n-2-e-n-3-n it would pretty much be the same hit points 1-e-n-2-e-n-3-n-4-e-n-1-e-n-2-e-n-3-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-2. So I would encourage you to practice it with the AND and 1-e-n-2-e-n-3-n-4-e-n-3-n-4-e-n-2-e-n-3-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-3-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4-e-n-4. There you have more access to the beats or the sub-beats there is more beats in the beat which is what we call as a sub-beat thach-ch-k-k-k-t-t. Also, let's study the other thresio, which is the more poppish one or the EDM one, which actually both are popular. So I honestly don't know what to call them. Maybe there's an official name for it. You can help me out in the comments. So you go now, this is the pop thresio or what I'm calling now as the EDM thresio. So pretty much the same hit points, but it's just gotten a bit faster. So you can look at it as a spacing of three beats, another three and then another two, adding up to an even number, three plus three plus two equals to eight. So it goes one, two, three, one, two, three, one. So some musicians like to actually count it as the, you know, one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two, three, or maybe using conical, you could say, right, or using the official beat symbols, you go So it's a two beat phrase, right over two beats. If you do it as 16th note, so one, one, two, three, and four. Sounds pretty much like all the songs out there, right? One, one, two, three. So you need to feel a sense of energy and excitement at the off beats, which are at the Earth or the ease, or even the ends. If you choose to do the slow thresio that ensures that you create a very human performance with a lot of feel and it doesn't sound so robotic as some of the programmed music tends to sound sometimes. So on the piano we want it to be with your own personality or your own feel. Okay, so slow thresio. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. Sorry. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. Now the fast one. One, two, three, four. One, two, three, four. And later on in the chapter or in this lesson, we are going to look at various things to do to make the fast or the pop thresio a lot more exciting like or maybe stuff like that, which we are going to talk about very, very shortly. So make sure you watch the whole lesson. There's a lot which is going to happen in this lesson in not too long a time, but watch the whole lesson. Okay, so now I'm going to choose a chord pattern which is super simple, D minor, D major, A major and E minor. I'm not going to spend too much time on the formation of these chords. It's written out for you in our handwritten notes. I've written down every inversion and the mapping of every chord to every chord with the most efficient way possible. So if you start from here, you go B minor to D major, always train yourself by playing the roots of the chord in the base unless otherwise mentioned unless they say it's a slash chord or something. So B minor, D major, A major, E minor. I kind of like even E major. It's also nice. It gives you a more rock Dorian feel, but we'll stick with the E minor. Each chord for two beats would be nice. But if you want, if you're new to this stuff, you could do each chord four times. So learn your chords with the respective inversions, which have been put out for you. Or if you know inversions, great. So right now I'm playing it in a very sort of ballad accompaniment style. You could say it works great if you're just doing like a slow, emotional or uplifting kind of music. But if you want to groove with this, we have to now play it in the style of the Thresio. That's what this whole lesson is about. So let's just start with the same hit points which we learned earlier, one E and a two E and a three and a four E and a same hit points. But now obviously without my tapping of the leg and the shaker, by the way, I would always recommend some kind of percussion to keep you going. A shaker, maybe a tambourine, maybe a bongo, which is really nice for piano. It's a great simulation or just your body. You could just do like a kick or your left hand simulation here and your right hand there. That's what I do. You could figure out something or whack something in your house without destroying it hopefully. So you go, the inversions are mapped out. Now let's whack the chords of the right hand with the Thresio rhythm grouping or the structure of the Thresio. So slow version. There we have it. And what is my left hand doing? Basically pulse. That's one, two, three, four. Always recommended to maintain a steady pulse. Maybe as your first rhythm, which you'll ever do, you know, just to get the wiring right. Pulse is very, very important.  Okay, with the Thresio now.  Or I count one and two and three and four and one and two and three and right depends on how you want to count. This is the slow version. So you can get away with just one and two and three and four and one and two. Or you could just practice these 16s because the fast Thresio is coming up. So one E and a two E and a three and a four E and a one E and a two E and a three and a four. There we go. And what I like to do in my left hand to not get a very aggressive sound is don't whack both the root and the octave together. Maybe you could start with the root and the octave together at the one and then dissipate it. So one, two, three, four, one. So it's only thumb. So pinky thumb at the one and only thumb. That's four hits. And you can play around with this later because you've kind of worked on the isolation of the pinky and the thumb, which is very important for groove. So check that out in the left. Also, if you can make the thumb of the left a little softer, not gets a bit annoying, I guess. So keep the thumb of the left nice and soft, mellow and hold the pinky. If you observe the pinky of my left is held a little faster with some dynamics would be awesome. Right. So now let's do the exact same thing. But now with the fast ratio. What was the fast ratio again? Let's do that. So left hand again pulse. So a nice practice would be to kind of snap the left hand or maybe tap it here. One, two, and so I'm only doing one, two, three, four with my left hand, which is eventually so this is a great simulation for what's going to happen on the keyboard with the chord roots of each chord B for B minor, D for D major, A for a major and finally E for E minor. So you go play everything basically six hits. So Tresio now becomes sort of shortened or fastened, fastened or faster. That's the right word. So you go. So you need two Tresio points or two Tresio sections, one, two and again, repeat. You could change it faster, but for now let's just do each chord for an entire bar of four. There we have it. Don't bring in your left hand until you've got the pulse on either your body or maybe on your leg somewhere or a table or you could also consider snapping. Also allows you to hear your right hand very well. Can maybe do staccato staccato. The last one could be legato. So you can focus a bit on the right hand, get the way the right hand should feel or how you want to play it. And then the left hand comes in. So long, quite poppish. Okay. Coming to the left hand now. So the same snap on the, with the left hand. chord roots. And for flavor, you could kind of toggle instead of whacking both together, you could go could do root, octave, root, octave, quite like that. So toggle instead of going, pam, pam, pam, pam, pam, you do root octave. Still the pulse, isn't it? You could also toggle root and fifth. There we have it. Starts giving a very Latin vibe, right? Or a salsa vibe. Just that fifth. You could also play around with the third if you'd like. So what's the third from each chord? B's third would be B, D, minor third because minor chord then D, F sharp, because that's a D major, then A to C sharp, E, G. Sometimes I end up doing a major by choice because I like the Dorian. So you go, or you have the best of both worlds, the third and the fifth. You could do something like a arpeggio, what I also call as a slow arpeggio.  This is the L, this is the M and that is our H. Now, you could also do L, M, H, M. So both, let me show you. All sound nice over the fast thresio. Maybe not over the slow one. Actually, it sounds good on the slow one as well. Yeah, sounds good on both. More commonly on the fast one though, which is keep the feel going. 16s. So chak-chak-chak-chak-chak-chak-chak-chak. So that's about your left hand.  Right? Right. So at this stage, if you practice both the thresio patterns, the slow one and the fast one, you could use it for a ton of music. You could use it for ballad stuff. You can use it for modern day dance music. You could even use it for some older 80s music or anything for that matter. It by popular doesn't mean it has to be used by a specific group of artists. You could even use it in a rock context. It's used a lot by a lot of rock bands, progressive bands, and so on and so forth. What I thought I'll end this lesson with would be to show you a few ways in which I use these two thresio patterns, the slow one and the fast one. So let me just show you a few of my patterns. You could say my go-to patterns, which you'll find in a lot of my music and the daily riffs which keep coming your way on YouTube. Right? So the slow thresio pattern, the first thing I'd like to consider or focus on would be dynamic chord. So first look at play the same thing with a lot of dynamics. Essentially, think like a wave. Think like you're going up and then down a hill, a very smooth hill, not a pointy hill. So you go with the thresio. You can even practice the dynamics with just one chord I guess. That'll be good. So see it's kind of soft, but the volume is still changing, isn't it? And if you'd like, you can explode. It's like a build-up. Always give your listener a taste of the volume and then when you go to the next section, just blast it out. And this could also be with relation to the drummer. It could be with relation to your arrangement of your song, or most importantly, your singer. You have to see what the singer is up to. Is the singer going softly, you know, something more mellow like in that volume versus now that's going a bit louder. So obviously you need to thus follow the singer. Or if you are a singer yourself, even better, it's kind of easier to follow your own dynamics. So that was dynamics over the chords. Another thing you could consider doing is adding a few ghost notes here and there. Now we've done a lot of lessons on ghost notes. You should definitely follow my powerful, ballad accompaniment YouTube lesson which is used a lot in songs. So there are a lot of these ballad videos which I've done and even stuff to learn ghost notes. So those are the two topics you may find useful along this lesson. So what I'm doing here is just those small little embellishments. Let me just show you one for this chapter and two and three and four. So I'm just adding the and as well. So I'm kind of breaking my right hand chord and just doing one single hit that one. So I do this a lot. Also in the left hand, you could do just before you climb to the next chord and for and so the and of the four could be ghosted.  So I'll just show you the right hand ghost and then the left hand ghost just to recap that one is the right ghost with your thumb two and three and four and two and first emphasize one and two and three and four emphasize it and then get it into your system played a bit softer. Now coming to the left ghost there we go. Just before we go to the next chord probably wondering why is he using this term ghost all the time. Well it is a technical term at least for drummers, bass players, guitar players because they have the ability to do these things you know but I'm just taking that language to the piano because I really don't know what else to call it. So anyway that was about ghost notes with dynamics. The next thing we do very often with which I would love to demonstrate with the slow thresio is something you would have heard very often. So you take there we have it arpeggios but following the thresio feel which is one two three one two three one two so your accent points one and two and four will be the thumb of your right hand or the highest finger of the right hand I'll come to that. So with the thumb one two three one two three one two these are not triplets you're just grouping the accents that's what creates the accent right one two three one two three one two three one two three one two three one two three one two three or start from the top fool around with the top note as well. So I've done a lot of these quite a few lessons you can check out a video we have called thresio arpeggios which we'll put out in the description. We've also done well I've taught the Coldplay song clocks which you can check out the entire lesson for a lot of songs have the thresio in them so do check it out. Okay so another thing which you could do is at the end of the bar you could squeeze in or sneak in a 16th note which would sound like this. Okay so at the very end one and two and three and four and a right you hear that one and two and it's easier actually to do this with an extra note so you could do and add that as well and now you can get the flutter better. Nothing in the left it's just the right right so that's the arpeggio 16th arpeggio flam or filler you can add now let me just show you a few things I would do over the fast thresio just to revise that one right one and two and a three I've already told you about the left hand with the fifth or the third or the octave toggle but the right hand here now this could start getting a bit boring maybe you're going you're repeating the same chord over and over again so it kind of gets a bit boring so let me just show you the pattern and then explain it it'll definitely make the existing EDM thresio a lot more exciting so that'll be okay you saw what happened there at the one I'm slamming the chord at the three I should have also slammed the chord because the thresio is sort of copy pasted at the three and the four beats of the bar so normal thresio now so where did I whack it there I whacked it at the E of the three okay one E and a two E and a three E and a four E and a four E and a two E and a four E and a two E and a three E and a four E and a four E and a two all the chords you can even you can add that flutter at the end which you learned for the slow thresio so make sure to use the correct inversions right and just to give you a hint maybe it'll inspire us to do another lesson in the future you can kind of combine the thresio with a few more hits and not do you've heard that a lot right very familiar rhythm so you can do things like the song clave or you can do something like the bossa clave or the bossa nova clave which could be so if you can you could add that as well that was the playing with the E of the three but now if I do the claves so the thresio when augmented with the clave becomes a very very interesting phrase it's like tension and resolution in rhythm which is a bit weird but very true it's that's the resolution so chords don't tense and resolve it's not tension resolution only for intervals and chords you even have the same equation the same emotion for rhythm just rhythm okay so anyway that's pretty much what I plan to do in today's lesson explore the two speeds of the thresio which is very inspiring and very important the slow one fast one right then we'll so after we learn both the speeds we then looked at the chord progression D minor D major A major E minor learn it with the correct inversions then we looked at some left hand toggling techniques with the slow thresio the fast thresio then we looked at some of the patterns which I use a lot in my music like adding a lot of dynamics a lot of ghost notes splitting it up instead of chord hits doing arpeggios adding some 16th note flavor and then creating more variations over the beat since making it more or less monotonous instead of doing we did and so on and so forth right guys I hope you found the lesson useful this was about the thresio watch our other stuff on the thresio rhythms and we have a playlist called rhythm chops so check that out as well in that playlist you'll find all the lessons which I cover topics on in the rhythmic domain right so check that out and some of them I understand are for more intermediate learners some of them are maybe a bit more advanced but a lot of them can be digested by all of you I hope right and even if you can't play it as I tell students you need to get inspired and moved by the sound you will eventually play it you can't play something unless you love it you know it's very difficult you have to find a way you have to listen to it and just enjoy the music and then you're more motivated towards learning the subject again this is Jason here from Nathaniel if you haven't already don't forget to subscribe to our channel all of these notes are available on patreon as as always not only this lesson stuff in the past and the stuff which is going to hit your way if you'd like something more regular and structured you can consider our foundation course foundation piano course which includes theory and ear training that will also be on youtube we have members only videos if you'd like to watch them or if you'd like to learn with me in person you can follow the form which is in the description and hit us up and you can join one of my courses at whichever level would suit you best and don't forget to hit that bell very very important hit the bell now if possible cheers this is Jason


3D and 4D printing are two emerging technologies that have been used to create complex structures with high precision. These techniques enable the fabrication of dynamic structures, which has led to the development of 4D printing, where structures can change shape or color in response to an external stimulus. 3D and 4D printing have great potential in tissue engineering, particularly in producing patient-specific scaffolds for tissue regeneration. Additionally, physical and chemical guidance cues can be printed with these methods to enhance the extent and rate of targeted tissue regeneration. This article was authored by Dillara Goksutami, Dillara Goksutami, Tuba Durson Yuzal, and others.


So, I'm going to hand over now to Anil Ali, who you saw earlier, who's going to moderate the next panel. Over to you, Anil. Thanks, Steve. Okay, so we have a question here related to. Industry existing industry standards, specifically IEC 6, 14, 99 and IEC 6, 11, 31. The question is, is IEC 6, 14, 99 a prerequisite for openness within industrial control, or is there a way to achieve openness with older or widely adopted standards like IEC 6, 11, 31? I'll answer that one. You can definitely use 6, 11, 31. 6, 14, 99 is a build on 6, 11, 31, but it is by no means a requirement to achieve interoperability. Okay. Thanks, Dave. And we've got another question related to OPC UA. Actually, let's let's skip on down a little further. I think that one was answered. Okay, here's another one on operating systems. Is OPC designed around particular operating systems? If yes, which one? So, I'll jump in here again. OPC UA is not operating system specific. OPC UA is information and communications standard, which can be implemented, I think, in all of the various operating systems. Well, that's good, Dave. And to go a little bit further on, well, actually, can you comment, Dave, and go a little bit further as to how the OPAS standard addresses OPC UA or how it references it within the standard? So when you think about it, OPC UA really gives a system ability to be interoperable in that it overcomes all the integration issues that we face with traditional systems with their particular, either proprietary or we'll just call it favorite protocols. OPC UA is based, it has an open foundation for the standard. The approach they take is that systems can be built using this tool without specifying chips, operating systems, languages, that kind of things. So really, when you start thinking about open systems, what you need is open interfaces and open standards. And OPC UA is an excellent example of an open standard based technology. And then you chime in a little bit, maybe there's some history with OPC that is confusing that the original version of OPC was built around COM and DCOM from Microsoft.  And so there are commercial versions of OPC stacks that come with Windows, Linux, VXworks, I'm sure there are others. And there's a vibrant open source community there too. Oh, okay. I think that's an excellent point. Yeah. And well, you know, for the listeners, you know, UA is the backbone of the information model for the OPAS standard. So I think our next question here is, let's see, are there any particular software knowledge, or is there any particular software knowledge or familiarity required? And I'm assuming that's the question there is related to software or integration of the OPAS standard. Dave, I think that might be a question for you. You have two days. I'd say you have to be more specific than that, but I remember reading this question in the Q&A, and I forget it exactly, but I've only just started implementing an OPC UA product. And what I found helpful was to have a little bit of a tutorial on an OPC UA, and then the various stacks come with, like, libraries for different languages. So I'm using the C++ one. There's a .NET one, and there are Python ones, and you know, you can probably find Java ones, and all kinds of things. But I would say that, you know, if I didn't know C++ and I didn't know the standard template library in C++, I would be struggling quite a lot to integrate OPC UA into my product. Now, on the flip side, maybe there's a question of if you're going to use OPC UA not so much implementing it, but use it in your plant, what do you need to know? And I haven't done that, so I don't know the answer to that. But, I mean, certainly back in the olden days of OPC before UA, there was a set of stuff that was really pretty important to know about how to set up the security and the passwords and that kind of thing. So, does anybody have some experience on that side, the using side? I'll add there, you know, the vendors products are starting to implement OPC UA. The use of OPC UA for me as an end user, I want to use it in the product. So, when it comes to actually, if programming or system development is necessary, I'd recommend you find a good system integrator who has some experience and exposure to OPC UA and is willing to work on the system and help you get it working, right? I think as more products become available and it becomes much more widespread than the OPC classic, we'll start finding that it works a lot of the same ways. It has more features, which since it offers the ability to have the information model, which is in the standard for the OPAS, it is really the solution of the future. I think as far as other technologies, the same issue exists. Depending on how sophisticated you are in your use of your equipment and engineering of that equipment, then it would determine whether you need systems integrator help, vendor support, or you're capable of dealing with most of it yourselves. Now, we'll say that the open standards approach of the OPAS is really important in that it's a lot easier to learn those open standards than it is to learn the proprietary methods of vendor X or vendor Y. And so that is my perspective as an end user. It is slightly different in that you have to learn the open standards at some point, but once you do, if you change vendors, you won't have to learn any new standards with open. I've got one question that will change gears a little bit. But then we can go back to probably more of the technical aspects of the standard, but here's a question from Steven Stanford. DCS vendor business models are still predominantly product to margin driven. Is this a barrier to adoption of OPA? Will the nature of contracts need to change, for example, away from product sales towards rewards for the delivery of benefits shared between buyer and suppliers? So I think this question more so speaks to the changes between actors within the business ecosystem. So would anyone like to take that one? So I think we certainly anticipate some changes in the business ecosystem, whether that will change to more of a, I like the suggestion that the person suggested there where instead of selling you a product, I'll install a product and take a cut of your savings, that kind of a thing. Those kind of metrics are difficult to define, I think, but it's an interesting idea. So I don't know how the pricing and delivery kind of mechanisms will shake out in the future. For example, we're talking a lot about separating hardware from software in these products where today, when you buy a Rockwell Automation Controller, you generally get software and hardware all together in one price and it's not really clear how much you're paying for either of those things. So if we were going to develop a product where you could put anybody's software on our hardware, then we would need to find a way to price those separately and that might be a difficult problem. So I think I can say with confidence that we don't really know how it's going to happen yet, but we do expect something to change. I guess I'd be interested to hear if any of the audience has a suggestion for how they'd like to see that market change. Yeah, or how they, any predictions that they have, I'm sure with that appeal, we'll get a couple. I have... So Anil, if I can just add to that. Yeah, following up on what Brandon had said about the whole digital transformation and the ability of the systems as well as Gene's comments on having flexibility. The move towards sort of the open standards is in some sense inevitable. It's a question of when it is going to happen and how fast it is going to happen. Right. I think we're in that case. I think the analogy to the software defined networking is also very appropriate where, you know, when Cisco and others used to sell proprietary routers and, you know, you were locked into that system. Versus, you know, after SDN, Cisco said, you know what, this is the new way this game is going. And they figured out how to change from proprietary network and routing to more of the selling services and more value added components. That's right. I think that change is happening and it's happened in other industries. It is going to happen in this industry as well. So, and it's really, I think going back to this is not about putting suppliers, you know, disadvantages suppliers or changing their, you know, it is going to change the mode of operation. But it's really about eliminating the inefficiencies in the system. Right.  And, you know, that doesn't necessarily allow you to get the best in class service or a product. And so I think this is all about eliminating those inefficiencies and creating value in the business model. Got a question here. Control systems are designed to last 20 to 30 years. Do you see this technology as a disruptor like IOT where end user organizations upgrade early to replace these systems? Or do you see this as a transitional technology that will take years to take hold? I see it as a disruption.  We know that wiring lasts many decades. Instruments last decades. I O generally last a decade or two computers. Well, you know, three to five years from now, we want a new one. If you think about Moore's law, it is always progressing. If you think about the need and the demand for better software, new efficiencies, new optimizations, that demand is going to come. So when we start looking at what the, you know, OPA is proposing in the standards is somewhat of a, we start abstracting away software from hardware. And even in the hardware world, maybe we abstract way IO from compute. And so if you think about it, you might need a stronger computer. You know, and in our desktops, you imagine we don't need a new mouse. In our automation systems, we might not need new analog input cards. But having a better computer is something would be advantageous. Obviously, it's got to be a business justified. We're not going to trade them in every year. But the idea that somehow the computer technology from today is going to be useful in 20 years. I think we've actually learned that lesson and that making me hold this computer for, you know, 1520 years makes me hold it way past its prime and has impacted my ability to generate benefit for my company. So I think that in the brownfield world, there will have to be a conversion. And that will take some amount of time. But I do believe the technology itself that OPA represents is really a disruption and a giant step change. That's a good question that I appreciate you asking it. I think from my perspective, the answer is yes, it'll take years for this to become the normal thing. So for sure it's not going to happen overnight. But I also expect that although plants will be designed to run for 20 years, we hope to make upgrading the control system incrementally and easy enough that you don't wait 20 years. And at the end of those 20 years, you have a thing that's completely junk. So what we're hoping is that every, you know, like Dave said, every time there's a significant technology change, like five years or so, that you'll start to pick apart little pieces of your system and upgrade those little pieces. And so instead of having these huge, huge upgrade events every 20 years might have a smaller upgrade event every five years, something like that. That's kind of what we hope happens. So essentially what that would mean is that within a system that's installed to last maybe 20 or 30 years, say you're wiring last two decades, your computing resources would not necessarily have to abide by the same kind of lifecycle. You can update your computing resources more frequently.  Yeah, yeah, literally, they can live out there. So wiring can last 50 to 80 years, easy.  And they do every piece of electronics has that, but the computing capability as the business evolves and capabilities, you know, progress, technology advances. You know, that's the kind of thing if if we can turn this kind of 20 year upgrade into an evolution and it happens, you know, done by a maintenance technician, and not by some multi year large cost project. I mean, that is that is the goal behind some of the standards activity, at least from the, you know, my company next on mobile, we look at that very, you know, very strong benefit down the road. If you can use standards, you can change the parts you need to change when the business says, let's make it better and we can, we can justify that expenditure. Yeah. The next question is, does this standard apply in the services industry? If yes, how can it be used in the process innovation or re engineering phases? I think that that question is posed from a perspective of, you know, maybe like Brownfield, Brownfield asset kind of rework or upgrades something something kind of probably more of that nature. You know, I think the services industry when we start talking about especially the conversation we had earlier about roles in the marketplace. If you have open standards based technology, then you don't have proprietary lockout, shall we say. We know there are suppliers of services that have specialized in various proprietary technologies. And if you were to go to more of an open standards based than everyone would be able to participate in that activity, not just develop some ability. I think that it allows for more innovation as well. And innovation is one of the key pieces of all this. That with open standards, you don't have to worry about can the innovation work in somebody else's proprietary world. They're all open standards based. You can start using it and it doesn't matter if your products were bought from vendor X or vendor Y. I think those are the pieces as far as services go. And so I liken this to the maybe the computer world back in the day where mainframes were the computers of choice. You could only get support and service from the vendors that sold you those equipment. We look at today, you know, if you have a portable computer or tablet, you know, you can get that kind of service from anywhere. Many people are capable of performing the services they need to do themselves. So I think that the marketplace will open up for services. I think we have an OPAP has a liaison with the CSIA and specifically because we think they will play a critical piece in providing services for these open standards based systems. I think we have one last question here. Can you talk about the differences between open standards, open systems and open source software? And are there open source options for designing, executing and managing the code on DCNs? Something synonymous to Java piggybacking on David Ford's analogy. That is a really great question. I think some of those questions are questions I had when I first started working with OPAP. So I'll start by trying to talk a little bit about the three different kinds of openness. An open standard is one which anyone who wants to implement the standard is allowed to implement the standard without, I don't know if I want to say, without any restrictions on it or without unreasonable restrictions on it. But there are some standards which you have to license the standard and pay a royalty to the people who invented the standard and that kind of thing. And that's not what we have here. What we have is a standard which was collaboratively developed and is available to anyone who wants to implement it. I guess I don't know a good example of one that's not open, but anyway. An open system is one in which any vendor can install components that participate in that system. So if we think of maybe the difference between, I'm going to say, a Macintosh and a PC, the Macintosh had, you know, you open it up, it has all Apple boards inside. The PC, you open it up and it could have any number of companies inside. And that's because the interfaces to the internals were defined in a standard. And so then other companies came out with products that implemented that standard and they were able to work together. Similarly, they could write their own software and run it on that system. So an open system is one which allows various vendors to participate. And there's a whole range of different ways you could participate. You could have access to the data inside. You could have the ability to run your own software. You could have the ability to substitute in your hardware for some other hardware or to put your hardware beside other hardware. So there are a number of different ways that you could participate in that openness and you wouldn't necessarily participate in all of them. And then third one was are there open source software? So I don't follow the open source community all that closely, but the one I mentioned earlier, there is an open source OPC implementation. I know that there are open source PLC implementations. So I know there are some open source projects. I know there are open source communication stacks. And maybe we should talk just briefly about what open source means, is that that's a collaboratively developed implementation of a product. And what we would call the intellectual property is collaboratively developed. And that's different than an open system, where in an open system, I might allow other, let's take my example where I have a controller, a PLC, I might make it so that other companies can access the data in that controller or that they can run their software programs in that controller, but I might not actually give them the operating system source or the schematics. And so I might consider that to be kind of my secret sauce in my company or where I can differentiate and make a better product. And so I'm not going to give that away to other people. So that might be the distinction between an open source product and an open system if that's helpful. Yeah, we could ask those three items, questions regularly within our company because a lot of people think of open source as free. The reality is open source, if you're really going to participate, you have to help support and help advance that open source software. So it's not exactly free. The software would obviously be available if you wanted to use it. But I think that there's a lot of misnomers about what open source can or can't do in terms of security and how well it might work. A lot of products are actually built on some open source building blocks. But in the end, we need a marketplace. And what that means is that people will bring their IP and their ideas and be able to sell them and generate economic value for the companies that they represent. I think the open standards allows them to interoperate with other people so we can create these open systems. And that's really the big piece. I'm not against open source. I'm not an advocate that it should all be open source. I think that especially with automation, it should all be tested and validated. And if open source can fill the build, then great. I'd rather open standards so that I can build open system and procure or get the products, whether they be software or hardware, from the vendor community. It is definitely a question you have to put in your mind. And others have to remember they're not the same thing. Open systems and open standards and open source are not the same thing. I have one final question. This is one that'll go back to OPC UA. It says if it's all based on OPC UA, why do we need OPAS? There's more to an automation system than just the communications and information model. So I took a swing at that in the chat and try to interrupt, Dave. Go ahead. I think it's a good question. And the answer is, well, maybe if we all agreed that OPC UA was the right thing to use, we wouldn't have this committee. But without OPAS, before OPAS, we hadn't really decided that OPC UA was the way a process control system should be architected. And then once we decided on OPC UA, there's quite a bit of work around how do you represent a particular thing in OPC UA? So OPC UA is fabulously flexible. And so what we essentially did was constrain OPC UA to achieve higher interoperability between OPAS products. So what would be an example? Like one of the examples would be, you know, we have to implement certain client server profiles, and we represent our signals in a certain way. So when you have two different products that are both talking about a signal, they can hook it up and good things will happen. So I'm not saying that that wouldn't have happened if OPAS didn't exist, but it hasn't happened yet. So what OPAS tries to do is find these good underlying standards like OPC UA and then add some prescriptive text about how exactly to apply that standard to our domain. And in that way, to make the standard work better for us and to achieve what we call our quality attributes, which are the big ones are things like interoperability and interchangeability and security and stuff like that. So that's, yeah. And then I'll go to where Dave DiBare was about to go, I think, which was there's more than communication here. We're, you know, OPC UA is our transport, and we've defined our information models in OPC UA, but we also have mechanisms for exchanging programs between various vendors. So there's an import-export format, which OPC UA does not talk about. There's some offline representation stuff that's not an OPC UA. There's some physical platform definition that is not an OPC UA and will be, you know, even more thoroughly defined in the future version. There's things like how to commission nodes or how to manage them and how to orchestrate them. That's a calming section in the spec. Anyway, so the point is that communication transports is one piece of the automation puzzle, but there are many others. That's a good answer. You know, essentially saying that the OPAS standard is going much further just addressing the communication protocol or the communications between devices on the system. Right.  It's much more as Dave put it. All the parts have a component that can use and might rely on OPC UA, but there's other things that will not be OPC UA-based just because of the nature of what they are. That's right. And well, you know, David, to take that a little bit further, there are already systems that are UA-based that are implemented by, you know, different assets and integers, and there are still shortcomings in those systems as well. So, you know, the, well, you know, I guess, you know, to kind of sum up what David Ford said, UA is not, it doesn't completely solve the problem because, you know, there are existing standards that, there are existing systems that are all UA-based. So, I think we've got one last one here. It's, no, okay. All right. I think that'll conclude our Q&A session for today unless we have any, yep. Oh, sorry. I'd say that Patrick Simon asked the question, isn't, it is an OSI enterprise approach OPC UA all layers. So, I'm not quite sure. I know what the question is. Yeah. So, I don't know. We want to talk about all about how the OSI model would apply here. You know, this is why, this is why maybe the OPC UA is not, is not everything in the system. We have applications, automation. The automation, you know, runtime application, it might communicate with its, I'll call it friends, the HMIs, the historians, the other controllers, if you will, with, you know, data using OPC UA, but actually an OPC UA is not running my PID algorithm that's controlling the level or flow. The historian application isn't, you know, it may communicate and use the information model from OPC UA, but that's not the critical piece of what it's doing. And so, that's maybe the part about the OPC UA. It fills some very nice roles because it's got a lot of features, way more than the OPC Classic had, but it's not the entire system. And so, I don't think it's the whole stack. As far as the networking, and I think that's where the comment may be being added, there's a lot of what we call OCF is based on OPC UA, but we do have some things like Redfish and some other aspects that are not OPC UA for system management. Any last comments, David Ford and Mohan? I think we'll just echo the, you know, call to read the standard version 2.1 and join 100 plus friends and participate and contribute to the development of the standard. And pretty soon we're going to start seeing products and systems, commercial deployments, and people starting to generate value from this. I think if you really want to get on the bandwagon, that is the time. That's right. Good point, Mohan. And as you're reading through the 800 plus pages of the specification, I'd recommend any questions, queries, concerns, or suggestions. Point all of those to OGspecs at opengroup.org. And that's an email address that's managed by the form and we will see all questions, comments, and recommendations that go to that email address. So I highly recommend, you know, like Mohan said, get a copy of the standard, start reading, review it, and then please send feedback to that address. And with that, I will turn it back to our host, Steve Nunn. Thanks, Anil, and thanks to all our panelists. David Fort, David DeBurre, Mohan. It's great to have you share your insights and answer those questions. So some great stuff came up there. Thank you very much to everyone who asked a question. I hope you got them answered to your satisfaction. And thanks again to our speakers and panelists today. So that largely concludes today's activity. I hope you found it useful and enjoyable.