What's going on guys got call here late in sports cards, and we're ripping impeccable team all eight box case number four at random Team style did a randomized for the break. I'll show you guys results again real quick Zachary W with the magic all the way down to Dallas with these sixers All right, you guys can always check those results on our website late in sports cards comm at the very bottom Get this case open lock guys box one empty Stainless stars to start us off. This one is Steph Curry on these stainless stars red Not numbered their team all exclusive red Curry there for the Warriors start us off. There's another red Tyrese maxi Philly And rookie red is going to be Jabari Smith Nice one there Thunder or sorry Rockets on the rookie rookie red This is to aids nice one here canvas creations auto that's gonna be Evan Mobley Nice sit there Kaz on the second year Mobley nice one Carson Great player for the calves there seven of eight on the red canvas creations Mobley. That's sweet-looking man behind that we have 288 rookie auto of Daylan Terry for the Bulls Daylan Terry 88 this team all impeccable is really good stuff. There's usually something out of eight out of 88 Really solid Stainless stars what we got this one is going to be read for these sixers stainless stars Joelle and bead Not numbered there base is William marketing and red not numbered jazz and another Joelle and bead this time it is the Red not numbered base Phillies and to 88 nice one here elegance RPA Jabari Smith, Jr. Nice hit there Rockets He's got the Rockets that one is Rory Nice hit there for of 88 not sure And another RPA to 88 this one is Wendell Moore, Jr. T wolves Go Chris two nice RPAs there Elegance RPAs to 88 both of them ready guys. Good luck here box number three Some team all just a few spots left in our last break guys. It is Don Russo optic team all Football just a few spots left stainless stars here first This one is stainless stars red. It's gonna be LeBron Nice hit there Lakers on the red stainless stars. Let's run this close. Yeah, so we'll mag that Jabari Smith there Rockets Rory. We'll get that Jabari Smith in a Mac for you, sir the elegance RPA Another red not numbered Lamello Jalen Suggs on the red this one is impeccable eight of eight on the extravagance auto elven haze I was going to the wizards their bullets Wizards on the elven haze number to eight And RPA number to 88 this one is Dyson Daniels pelicans nice Daniels there for the pelicans box four Hey, good luck Jerry good luck sir. I'm sorry about that We'll get you some nice in the next one stars there stainless stars Empty this one is Trey young red not numbered That's one here for the thunder Jalen Williams on the red base Team all exclusive on these reds We've got Oshay Abadji numbered 88 of 88 there Red rookie for the jazz No, man my boy Next we got for the magic. It's going to be Otto one of eight Hito Turcaloo Nice one there. That's my boy Nice Turcaloo extravagance auto one out of eight. Nice Turk there. That was a young Turk, too Let's hit their magic to eight got our stainless stars now another stainless stars Joel and bead For the Sixers there second indeed stainless stars Box five save that one and I read not oh, that's actually to eight red to eight. That's Yannis Nice hit their bucks low numbered Yannis Five of eight nice Yannis there bucks Got a Wiggins red not numbered This one is elegance rpa to 88 for the Rockets again, this one's going to be Tari eason Rockets getting some hits here Our eason and rpa to eights. This one is Malachi Branham spurs This stuff has some super low numbered rpa's and stuff man. I like it nice hit their spurs It's Felix number to eight there on the Malachi Branham got our bar cart the bar is two of six on the One Troy ounce of silver Pacers there number two is six and Andrew Nimhart Pacers are Felix two out of eight on the one Troy ounce of silver Nice hit their Felix got box six Come on come on. This one is stainless stars rookie Dyson Daniels pelicans Not numbered there stainless stars red Not sure on that one to me Honestly, they don't know what you're saying there LeBron James red ice LeBron there Lakers couple LeBrons Got a Zach Levine red Bolts to 88 we got Chet Holmgren nice rookie Otto there thunder That's DW nice hit 85 out of 88 on the Chet Otto Sick one there Grats on that D and RPA numbered to 88 this one's window Moore second one there for the T wolves Window Moore elegance RPA Yeah Reaching for the yellow Donnie No, no, no, I'm not giving you nothing Give me a green on my side. You're on my side. I'm not giving you nothing Ready guys box seven here. Yeah, kick me out here to happen. Yeah, exactly No, no, no All right, you guys stainless stars here again. This one is blazers. Nice hit there stainless stars rookie Shaden sharp I said blazers rookie red tarry eason rockets There's a yokich on the red base not numbered RPA number to 88 this one is elegance RPA for the thunder again. That one is Ushman Dyang To 88 there elegance RPA And we have Otto to 88 this one is Christian Brown rookie Otto nuggets Nuggets there Charles Christian Brown on card on it to 88 And last one here guys of impeccable team all this is break number four Appreciate y'all helping us fill up today. There's stainless stars. It is a red stainless stars. Yanis Yanis for the bucks last pack not numbered there Michael Porter Nuggets on the base We've got a Chris Paul red not numbered as well Sons This one is Otto to 88 Jaden ivy nice one there on pistons We'll mag this for you pistons as Patrick T Great hit on the ivy on card out to 88 Very nice. This is a really good team all products, man 88 elegance RPA. We have another Wendell Moore jr. So be the third one there for the T-wolves numbered to 88 Elegance RPA Friday guys, that'll do it for the break. We'll do a quick hit recap here We had rookie Otto's 88 Christian Brown RPA to 88 Dyang Window more to 88 to eight. We had Malachi Branham Spurs to 88. We had Tari Eason RPA We had Hito Turclew to eight love that one We had another window more there to 88 RPA a bodgy to 88 There's Dyson Daniels to 88 as well RPA There's Alvin Hayes Otto to eight another Wendell Moore RPA to 88 there to 88 Dale and Terry Otto and to eight we had Evan Mobley canvas creations auto In our mags. We had numbered to 88 Chet Holmgren We had Jabari Smith jr. Elegance RPA to 88 We had silver bar. That's Andrew Nemhardt number to six on the one ounce of silver And we had numbered to 88 rookie Otto of Jaden Ivy Pistons Really solid break there guys appreciate you helping us fill it up That was impeccable team all eight box case number four get our last break the night going here right away. Appreciate you guys


Pentagon Press Secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby announced at a press briefing Wednesday DOD is reviewing the military awards and decoration process. SECDEF asked for this review and it will look at all distinguishing devices through the Medal of Honor. Now that we're getting towards the end of the combat mission in Afghanistan he wants to take a more holistic view of the awards process and the decoration process and he's kicked that effort off I think that it will we're hoping to have that review process done by the end of this year early 2015 but he wants a more holistic view here rather than just looking at it cherry picking it with this device here or that ribbon there he wants he wants to take a broader look at this. From the Defense Media Activity I'm Petty Officer Jen Blake.


Hello everybody and welcome back. Now this is the finished build of this. Tubes included. It does look really nice, the whole thing, the whole look of it looks pretty nice and it sounds pretty good. Now there's no volume control on this so it's full on, it's class A so that means full power. It does do a nice thing though, it waits until the tubes are warmed up sufficiently and clicks over a relay there before the actual speaker style starts coming out. It's pretty cool. Listening to it, yeah it's punchy, it's from my little music player, I have that little hybee, it sounds really good and I shall be listening to it again today. I spent about four or five hours listening yesterday. Just chilling out in my favorite listening position using my main speakers, connected it to that and I was using it out the way with the little LM1875 setup. Now first of all I'll tell you this, that when I had this connected to the LM1875 I was listening to my music through this. It didn't really sound as punchy and I did sort of like complain about that a little bit to my friend just saying well I do like it, it does sound nice and clear and he kept saying yeah it sounds really clear doesn't it? But he just lacked a bit of you know umph. But maybe that's because you know I had, I was using this as a volume control so I'd have my music player on let's say 50%, then I'd be using this as a volume control. Maybe if I'd have put it on full blast and then just used the volume of the music player and incrementally you went up, maybe that'd be different, that's what I'm going to have to play around with and test about with. But I used this like I say through the music player LM1875 music player brilliant shielded cable on the input of course, no hiss.  If you take this out of course it's going to amplify all the signals around me in the air and it does big ol' noises but if it's in the music player and the music player is set to go on pause then it's really quiet, a little tiny bit of hum out the speakers like I say but you can expect that you're not going to clear that up altogether or maybe you are but on this setup like this. No but if you if you're let's say three feet away a meter away no you're fine you can't really hear anything that's fine that's fine as far as I'm concerned that's fine if I plugged this in this setup into my tv now unfortunately a lot of hiss would come through you know it'd be quite annoying I should have maybe done some capturing of it but by the time I thought about all of that I'd taken all the parts again in maybe later on I might put a little bit up and just include it in another video so there's going to be another video about this anyway so yeah hiss to the point of it was annoying if you turn the volume up really loud yeah the hiss would be you know pushed at the back a bit but of course it's still there but that's where this comes in because if you connect this up through the LMA 1875 into the tv set beautiful it gives a whole new viewing experience yeah it's lovely it's lovely separated it's nice and clear it is lovely now you're going to remember the price of these isn't that expensive so you can't expect it to be super audio file quality but it is good enough to make if you've just got a straight tv setup sound pretty darn good and that's probably why I'm using this for and even coming out the back of my computer I didn't test this on the back of my computer that's why I'm saying that's probably going to be the videos I need to do that the back of my computer the reason I didn't test on the back of my computer when I first thought about it is because I use linux and linux seems to turn off the sound card when it's not in use which means and then you're going to get the noise I'm not being in use but on my laptop I do have a windows partition and so maybe asked to get through on the windows partition no good me go through the virtual box and opening it up windows inside linux because the same thing when there's no sound going through it seems to cut off the sound card and you get the noise but in windows it you know it keeps everything open I think because it doesn't seem to have that effect so I will do that but that'll be another test when we do that I'll do the sound test because no sound test today it's just to tell you how what I thought about this and the difference is between connecting up use for the tv this one works better great little great little add-on for that and the tv set and these alam 1875s works lovely not as punchy I don't think going through my mp3 players what this is but then this is a lot higher gain with these two 12 8x7s here and at two 12 807s here so because he's like a hundred move you know a hundred times gain and these are I think 60 times gain I think I got that right yeah 60 times gain but it does sound nice the transformer itself this I was recently you know it's quite surprised actually that this doesn't really make a lot of noise there is you know a little bit of noise and it does get slightly warm when you're using it but only very slightly in fact my other toroidal transformer which is overkill for this particular application got warmer than what this did so we're talking you know just very mildly very mildly there but nothing on here gets particularly warm when it's running um these for the one here and one here as for these LT 1085s which is basically an upgraded lma lma 8 lm 317 it's slightly warm but not really warm at all that stayed cold even though when I was actually turning the music up not terribly loud at night was downstairs and such but uh loud enough for it to fill this room up nicely uh no that was actually you could feel the difference cold it wasn't really doing a lot of work so um so yeah I'm I'm chucked a punch chuffed chuffed with it so it's really nice I do want to work out some stuff I've actually bought myself a book which is about tube amplifier basics so I can get a bit more understanding about what I can do with this to sort out the hiss maybe on that other the other application with the tv but uh yeah it's nice and of course it looks nice it does look nice now these tubes don't glow that much you don't want them glowing too high anyway because it would just degrade them quicker but um you know they do put a little bit of glow on there's no little LEDs on this lighting them up or anything like that uh which I'm happy about there are a couple of LEDs uh you've got this one here and this one here because when you first set up uh remember this is a allen 317 and allen 317 or lt 8 10 85s uh the difference on them is that these are more efficient and just to round it up in the nutshell the more efficient look them up if you want to see all the differences but they are more efficient and you've got a tweak it to get the right voltage with this uh 2k uh potentiometer and same over here so what you gonna find is that full blast at 16 volts and I did mine I didn't have the tubes in because they run in series connection so you want 12.6 volts on there but then this is a parallel connection to this other tube so ideal 12.6 volts so I didn't have the tubes in and because it's going to be regulated it doesn't matter the tubes in tubes out it's still going to be the same voltage so I just uh I tweaked it one side it showed me it was 16 volts and it was clicking so I just went down tweaking it down until I was down to 10 so I just backed it up just a little tiny bit at a time and it came to 12 point I think mine's 12.45 on both because that's where it just went and it settled so I'm just gonna leave it like that so that's something taken to consideration when you're setting up if you decide to go for one of these is that you just got to set those up so they um yeah so that sets up greatly and that's it pretty much everything else about it is as is it's it's it's okay it's not bad it's I'm sure there are ones out there better of course there would be I've seen some of these uh preamps they're very expensive um when you if you decide to buy these you've got to buy your own tubes here these are Phillips we set it on the side Phillips with these tubes I'm not sure about these two because I've got no markings on them whatsoever that could be for a couple of reasons variable reasons it could be that they're not very good tubes and um people just wanted to wipe off the markings and whatever but it sounds all right to me doesn't sound bad listening to all the depth I've got some nice bass out of I'll actually put a bit of sound on in a second actually because I'm running off here at nine minutes um and yeah and uh yeah it's not too bad at all not too bad at all I'm pleased with it for the price it was about 18 pounds something like without the tubes it could be a bit more expensive I'll put it up on the up on the screen there could be more a little bit more expensive but um you've got to get your own tubes of course and yeah yeah it's quiet it's uh I'll do this on the test and we'll see what we get for the uh for the noises like that but we're just sitting listening to it yeah it's great it's great all right bit of sound I'll let it run out with that and um I'll just pull that in there and pull that in there so yeah know what it's set up because it's got these little connectors you see just go straight onto these boards which is ideal and um I'll just play the music off on it okay well thanks for watching guys


start by acknowledging and celebrating the first Australians on whose traditional lands we meet today and pay my respects to the elders of the Nunnawal people past and present. It's a great pleasure to be here this evening to welcome you all to the university and I'd like to begin by extending my thanks to the Honourable Kevin Rudd for joining us here this evening. Mr. Rudd shares a passion and a commitment for closing the disadvantaged gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. His address today will mark nine years since the historic National Apology to Australian Indigenous Peoples. This was a milestone moment in 2008 for this country's history and it marked a significant step towards reconciliation in Australia and I remember that day well. Mr. Rudd's ongoing commitment and leadership to this cause helps keep the issue on the agenda and moving it forward. Mr. Rudd, we commend you for your work and your efforts. Thank you. Reconciliation is one of the key planks of the new ANU strategic plan that we launched last week and of my vision as Vice Chancellor of this university. We have committed to building on our relationship with Indigenous Australia in particular to increase the recruitment and success of Indigenous students and staff but not only that we are also undertaking research relevant to the big questions facing Indigenous Australia and are going to be playing a more active role in the national debate. Professor Mick Dodson AO Director of the ANU Centre for Indigenous Studies will speak after Mr. Rudd's address. So without further ado it gives me great pleasure to invite Mr. Rudd to speak. Thank you very much Vice Chancellor or as you would be addressed in Australia Mr. President. I should say in America is Mr. President. Having just flown from President Trump's America to Malcolm Turnbull's Australia I'm relieved to be here at the Australian National University an enclave among them both. I honour the first Australians on whose land we meet and whose cultures we celebrate as the oldest continuing cultures in human history. I honour the stolen generations whose grief suffering and loss forever marks us all and I honour our Indigenous brothers and sisters who are with us today on this the ninth anniversary of the National Apology. Someone I respect greatly a senior Indigenous woman said to me the other day why on earth did you require the closing the gap report to be presented to Parliament each year. It is a disaster for the government. The last part of her remarks of course are largely true. It usually is a political disaster for the government of the day for governments of whichever political persuasion. But that's because closing the gap was never meant as a public relations exercise nor was the apology itself meant as a public relations exercise. Both the apology and the annual closing the gap statement were intended as real concrete exercises in public policy. The apology was a formal recognition after 220 years of European settlement of our systematic brutalisation of a proud people who had lived in these lands for millennia. Closing the gap was a strategic policy setting with targets, benchmarking, data collection and annual review as an annual calling to account for the nation. One without the other would have been a dead letter.  You can't apologise for treating someone badly without then changing your behaviour towards them for the future. As I said at the time we should have the maturity as a polity to recognise where we succeed and where we fail in this most critical areas of public policy. Particularly in an area of public policy which says everything about who we are as Australians and in addition to that how we are then seen in the world. Successes when they occur should be celebrated, failures should be acknowledged with brutal honesty and learning should be had so that they can be applied to the new approaches for the future. I hear it said sometimes that closing the gap hasn't worked and that we should try something new. I would say to such critics that such an approach would represent yet another triumph of superficiality over substance in some sort of faddish search for something that sounds new and exciting as part of a permanent political search for rebranding. Good grief. Give me a break. How purile could we get? The essence of closing the gap is the cold hard business of measurement. It's about agreed targets in critical areas such as indigenous health, education, employment and longevity. It is about collecting the data where in so many areas either at a federal or state level the data just didn't exist often because we didn't care or often because we were just too embarrassed either as national or state governments to collect it for fear of the actual story of indigenous disadvantage it would tell. It's about assembling the data into an intelligible picture for policymakers and the public and yes it's also about drawing all the above together to prick our national conscience but with the intention of adjusting policies where we need to or to continue policies where they are demonstrably working. This is what closing the gap is all about and why it should be preserved as our national framework for future indigenous policy. What closing the gap is not about is the prescription of detailed individual policies for each of the five sectors it seeks to measure. Policy solutions will vary from state to state, from city to city and from community to community. That is as it should be. Conditions differ, warranting different responses. So when we say closing the gap is not working what we may mean is that various individual policy settings in different parts of the country may not be working but that does not mean that the overall framework of measurement that we've spent years now creating under closing the gap should be replaced. What it does mean is we need to work harder on the hard stuff of policy and program delivery. The intergovernmental mechanism we agreed upon between the Commonwealth and the States was the COEG, Council of Australian Government's Agreement of December 2008. I remember it well and all the scar tissue associated with it. This was the first time in the history of our Federation that we managed to bring the Commonwealth and the States and the territories together into a united national strategic policy framework and critically with a united set of measurements of success or failure. Indigenous Australia is not all that concerned which state they might happen to live in. What they want to know is whether their lot is improving locally and whether it is improving nationally. So these are the three arms of government strategy that go to the heart of the matter. The apology itself, closing the gap as a strategic policy framework and the COEG strategy of combined national funding, individual policy settings and the nuts and bolts of program delivery. And I'm proud that this structured approach was set in concrete by my government. Friends, failing to close the gap is just not an option. This year's report I'm told will be handed down tomorrow. Knowing the political process well as I do, I'm sure it'll be leaked overnight. Let's read our morning papers with interest, fascination and surprise. It will, I imagine, be a mixture of success and failure, but better we know than we don't and I would recommend it to all of you as a central reading. Permit me to remind you just for a moment of the closing the gap targets. One, close the life expectancy gap within a generation. Two, halve the gap in mortality rates for Indigenous kids under five within a decade. Three, ensure access to early childhood education for all Indigenous four-year-olds in remote communities within five years. Four, halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for children within a decade. Five, close the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous school attendance by the end of 2018 next year. Halve the gap for Indigenous students in year 12 attainment rates by 2020. And seven, halve the gap in employment outcomes between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians within a decade. These are ambitious targets. I don't apologise for any one of them because it was inviting the nation to be ambitious about this underlying state of deep social injustice. But the first decade is fast drawing to a close. I have an age and I'm sure none of you have either. But the decade and its conclusion fast approaches. And for the past few years I've been calling and I've not been alone for other targets to be added to the original seven to be measured to become part of a candid national conversation again on success and failure. In previous speeches on this anniversary I've argued for an additional target on Indigenous higher education rates. I've also argued that CoA needs to consider a target to reduce the nation's appalling Indigenous incarceration rates. And I would call on the government to take that seriously and to do it soon. Those targets so far have not yet been added. Perhaps the Prime Minister might announce them tomorrow. But for the last few years on this anniversary I've also raised the alarm on the emergence of what some are calling a second stolen generation. That is the growing number of Indigenous kids being removed not just from their parents but removed from their community and removed from their culture. And I promised in the National Apology nine years ago that that would never ever happen again. Let's talk about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle. The removal of any Aboriginal child must be a last resort. Let me repeat it must be a last resort. That is how the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle begins. Removal of an Aboriginal child must be the last resort. It goes on. The principle says if after consultation with a community controlled Aboriginal welfare organisation removal of a child from its family is unavoidable then the authorities must have regard to the direction of the Aboriginal welfare organisation. If such removal is necessary then the child must be placed within the extended family or if this is not possible the child may be placed within the Aboriginal community with close proximity to the child's natural family. If there is not an Aboriginal placement available then in consultation with Aboriginal and Islander care child care agencies the child may be placed with a non-Aboriginal family on the assurance of the child's culture identity and contact with the Aboriginal community are maintained. This principle was not the product of the Apology nine years ago. It's much older than that. In fact the principle was developed more than 30 years ago in response to the terrible legacy of the stolen generations. And it is now enshrined in legislation and policy in all states and territories. In WA the principle is ratified by the Department of Community Services in October of 85 and from that time Aboriginal children in WA could not be placed with non-Aboriginal carers without the approval of the Director-General and it was entered into legislation in 2004. In the territory the Northern Territory it was incorporated into legislation in the Community Welfare Act of 83 and subsequently in the Adoption of Children Act of 1994. In South Australia the principle became the official policy of the South Australian Government in 1983 and included in South Australian legislation in 1988. In the ACT it's reflected in the Children and Young People Act 2008. In Victoria incorporated the legislation in 1989. In Queensland you'll find it in the Child Protection Act of 1999 and New South Wales it became part of the law with the Children Care and Protection Act of 87, the Community Welfare Act of 87 and the Adoption Information Act of 1990. I mention all this to make it clear for all that it is more than a policy, much more than a policy, more than a guideline, much more than a guideline, much more than a good intention and more than an idea. It is the law as defined by the States and Territories of Australia. And while protecting children is a state responsibility it is also everybody's business and that was reflected in 2009 when the Council of Australian Government's COEG endorsed the national framework for protecting Australia's children 2009 to 2020. Once again I'm proud of the fact that this was done under my government. The national framework is for Commonwealth State and Territory Governments, non-government organisations, service providers and individuals with an interest in ensuring all Australia's children black and white are safe and well. So what does it say? It says Indigenous children need to be supported and safe in their families and communities. For this reason I'm disappointed by the current Third Action Plan 2015-2018 which now has been brought about within this framework. It contains a lot of business and its usual activity by the Commonwealth Government and a lot of not much at all from some of the States. I understand there is an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander working group that supports this national framework process and COEG should listen to it and make sure it is not lost in the bureaucratic processes. Call me harsh, many have, but COEG needs to do much better and I hope it does. As does of course the implementation of the national standards of out-of-home care, of which standard number three is Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities participate in the decisions concerning the care and placement of their children and young people. This isn't just about bureaucracy, it's about young lives, often very young lives. How they are raised will be both our legacy and their future. In this context I must also mention the good work of SNI AICC, affectionately known as Snake, the Secretary for National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, and their national campaign Family Matters, which is seeking to work in every state and territory to change the story. Because my friends the uncomfortable truth is that the story of Indigenous child removal is bad and it's getting worse. As you may know I'm much given to programmatic specificity. What programmatic specificity means is simple, I like to have numbers, but on this subject the numbers are chilling. In 2006, 6497 Aboriginal children were in out-of-home care nationally. Then there was Little Children, our sacred inquiry, which increased the focus on Indigenous child welfare. By the end of June 07 it had jumped by one and a half thousand to just under eight thousand. Since then the number has grown by about additional thousand kids per year, so that by mid 2015, which is the most recent data available, it stood at 15,432. Of those 15,432 children who are now in other forms of care, one-third or just under five thousand were not placed in accordance with the child placement principle. That is a big proportion of a growing number. That is no Indigenous organisation was consulted, no extended family carer was found and no community carer was found for that one-third of the national caseload. These kids were just taken away. We all know this is a difficult, delicate and complex area. The rights of the child and our responsibilities for the safety of the child must always come first. Furthermore, we cannot today in the time we have dissect the various assumptions that these figures rest on. But what is patently clear is that the focus across the board is not on early intervention. It is not based on prevention, which would obviate the need for a family to be broken up in the first place. And when the removal of a child must occur, we also know that a third of such cases occur without recourse to a local Indigenous community organisation to identify alternative placement options within the wider family clan or culture. What is also clear in our current national circumstances is that $500 million in cuts to a range of Indigenous programmes and front-line services by the current government is not helpful. I will never condemn anyone for removing any child from harm. But it can be done in consultation with Indigenous authority, with Indigenous responsibility and with Indigenous support. Or it can be done with total disregard of community culture and family. Let us do all we can to prevent the harm, rather than just react to it. So are we looking at the emergence of yet another stolen generation? Let me be clear. Our growing challenges with child removal today are of a different order of magnitude entirely to what we saw over more than a three quarters of a century period with the brutality meted out to the stolen generations. In Queensland, for example, Queensland's Industrial and Reformatory School Act of 1865 allowed neglected or destitute children to remove from the care of their families in place in a range of institutions available at that time. Under this legislation, any child of Aboriginal descent was by definition defined as neglected. The stolen generations were not the result of underfunded child services. It was not the result of poorly implemented policy. It was the policy. According to the Bringing Them Home report, there was no Indigenous family in Australia unaffected, directly or indirectly. The stolen generations were not removed from their families to keep them safe. They were removed from their families because they were Aboriginal, full stop. And some would argue for current kids, that's still true, that racism plays a part in the terrible rates of out of home care we have today. I'm not so sure about that. I can't make the judgment. But what I am sure of is that we cannot simply stand back and let the numbers of Indigenous kids being removed grow year by year without other options being tested within the wider Indigenous community. We do not want another generation of young Aboriginal children unnecessary, separated from their culture. We do not want to see the emergence of a second stolen generation, not my design, but nor by default. So what are the states and territories doing about this? Under current arrangements between the Commonwealth and the states, the removal of Indigenous children is fundamentally a state and territory responsibility. And there is some heartening news. Some positive responses are now beginning to emerge. In New South Wales, as a result of the alarm raised in no small part by the hard work and effort of grandmothers against removals, a review was announced late last year into the case of every Aboriginal child taken into out of home care during the year 2016. The New South Wales government is also investing $90 million over four years for new family preservation and restoration services, with 50% of the new intensive family preservation places being for Aboriginal children and their families. In New South Wales, Indigenous people make up just 3% of the population, but 37% of the kids in out of home care. In WA, which is also around 3% Indigenous, Aboriginal kids in out of home care make up a staggering 52%, with only 64% of those placed in other forms of care in accordance with the Aboriginal child placement principle. Last year, WA saw the release of an early intervention and support strategy. It is sorely needed and needs to be just the beginning. In Queensland, my home state, the rate of kids placed in accordance with the principle has dropped to around 56%. In 2015, three and a half thousand Indigenous children were in out of home care. And in a state where Indigenous people make up 3.6% of the population, they make up 42% of children in this form of care. But again, in Queensland, work is underway in conjunction with Indigenous elders and organisations to develop a whole of government action plan. The Northern Territory has the worst rate bar none for compliance with the child placement principle, with only 34.8% of Indigenous kids in out of home care placed in accordance with the policy. A few years ago, they had a magistrate who said she thought the principle was getting in the way of ensuring a child's wellbeing. Well, given what we have seen recently with Indigenous youth incarceration in the Northern Territory, it would seem very much that this business of ignoring the principle does not appear to be delivering the result. Moving an Indigenous child into a non-Indigenous family is not dropping them into the lap of luxury with unheard of opportunities and a better start. Moving an Indigenous child into a non-Indigenous family, in fact, can mean something quite different. Speaking to foster carers in the Northern Territory, by ignoring community, by not engaging the Indigenous organisations and the extended families, it is not unusual to see Aboriginal kids shunted around five different foster families within one single year. Five different foster families within a single year. They are not only losing their culture, these children are losing also basic stability and any sense of home and security. Add to that the harm a change of government can do to long-term planning and strategy. This happened with the incoming CLP government in 2012, scrapping all that was learned in the 2010 growing them strong together report on child safety in the Northern Territory. I hope this report is a priority for the new Territory Labor government. Perhaps they and others could take inspiration from Victoria. In Victoria in 2014 a systemic inquiry was launched, Task Force 1000, to investigate how to stem the rapidly rising number of Aboriginal children in out-of-home care in that state, then totaling just under a thousand. In the course of a two-year inquiry their numbers rose by a further 60% nearly 1700. Aboriginal children represented 20% of all children in state care in Victoria, despite Aboriginal people representing less than 1% of the state's population. There are nearly 12 times, they are nearly 12 times more likely than non-indigenous children to be put in out-of-home care. The findings of Task Force 1000 was released at the same time as a review into compliance with the Aboriginal child placement principle. That principle and its local application was released in October of last year. The child placement principle review found that not one Aboriginal child experienced complete compliance with the principle in Victoria, not one. While the Task Force found more than 6% were case managed by a non-Aboriginal agency, 60% placed with a non-Aboriginal carer, 42% away from their extended family, and more than 40% separated from brothers and sisters. Tellingly the Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People Andrew Jacomas said, and I quote him, we had child protection officials telling us they were unable to trace a child's Aboriginal family for years when we were able to trap them down on Facebook within minutes, unquote. Sir Humphrey would have been proud of the defence and shocked by the response. Thankfully in Victoria, rather than responding to reviews by ditching the principle and the policy, they have instead looked at improving delivery. And better yet, they are actively making Aboriginal organisations decision makers, not just under consulted advisers. They are also investing in that essential component called early intervention. Because keeping kids safe from harm, keeping families together, helping before it becomes a crisis where out of home care is the only option is what everybody wants. Read the Task Force 1000 report if you can. It's entitled Always Was, Always Will Be, Courery Children, but be prepared for some genuinely heartbreaking case studies. Finally, I must mention South Australia. Across the board, it would seem everyone agrees that Indigenous developed, managed and delivered services with family services built on local needs will lead to better outcomes for Indigenous children. Except, it seems, in South Australia where it appears the department is looking to abandon the Aboriginal child placement principle altogether. This is disturbing. Like Victoria, they started their review in 2014. In South Australia's case, it was a royal commission into the child protection system in August last year that we saw the findings handed down. It was broader than Indigenous kids in out of home care, but they made at least 10 recommendations directly related to Indigenous children. These were recommendations such as placing local Aboriginal support services within child and family assessment and referral networks to promote service coordination, adopting culturally appropriate assessment tools to assess kinship carers in the community, reviewing practice guidance, funding arrangements and the range of declared agencies to ensure that a recognised Aboriginal agency was consulted on all placement decisions involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in accordance with the provisions of the Child Protection Act 1993. All that sounded very promising. That was the nature of the review. But part of it seems the Parliament's response has been to release a draft child and young people safety bill 2016. And in that draft bill, I'm sorry to say the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle has disappeared. It is gone. In the old bill of 1993, we have no decision or order may be made under this act as to where or with whom an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child will reside unless consultation has first been had with a recognised Aboriginal organisation or a recognised Torres Strait Islander organisation as the case may require. The royal commission suggested reviewing funding of agencies to make sure that that happened. But instead, it seems that the parliamentary draftsmen have rewritten the act, weakening Indigenous engagement to suggesting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should participate in the care and protection of their children and young people with as much self-determination as reasonable in the circumstances. And by the way, in South Australia, 30% of the children and out-of-home care are Indigenous, while they make up only 1.9% of the state's population. If all these facts are true and I'm advised that they are, then I would certainly request the parliamentary draftsmen in South Australia to review the approach taken in the current draft bill. To conclude, the purpose of running through in some exhaustive detail what each jurisdiction is doing is to report where work is underway, where it is succeeding and where it's in fact falling short. And in doing so, I'm conscious of the fact that the alarm is being raised. The results of each state's efforts are not yet known and often not yet fully implemented. So this is not the time to slacken attention but rather to redouble the call. There must be more than press releases, more than reviews and more than action plans. There must be action itself. So why not commit to a target? Let each state share what it is working, what is working for that state and what is not. Let's see 100% of Indigenous children placed within their wider family or Indigenous community in accordance with the provisions of the original Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle. Let's see the number of kids needing to be removed drop for the first time in a decade. Let's leave up to the promise that I made in the apology that this would never ever happen again because it is not enough for all to agree that it shouldn't happen. In fact, action must be taken to ensure that it doesn't happen again. All states and territories, irrespective of their political persuasion, need to be held to account. It's complex. It's going to require immense coordination across government departments. It's going to require Aboriginal organisations being given responsibility for child welfare. It's also going to require those same Indigenous organisations to perform and to perform effectively. And yes, it's going to require money. I've never been in the business of the blame game.  I'm in the business of finding real solutions to entrenched problems. That, I believe, is smart, smart government. That's what closing the gap is about. That's what the National Apology is about. That's what, in fact, the National Apology Foundation for Indigenous Australians is about. This is the foundation I established a couple of years ago, since leaving the Prime Ministership of Australia, to make a material difference to the business of reconciliation across our country, including how we measure effectively whether we're closing the gap or not, including in critical areas such as child placement and whether, in fact, children are being placed properly and sensitively within culture rather than out of culture. The National Apology Foundation for Indigenous Australians, which I'm proud to chair, and many of whose board members are with us today, have embarked upon an enterprise, and that is to make a difference on closing the gap. Last year when I was at this university, I was pleased to announce my own personal contribution of $100,000 to the work of the foundation. And that's why today I also have great pleasure in announcing a further personal gift of $100,000 for the foundation's future work. This is a small way. This is one small way in which we can make a difference as individuals, in my case, through the foundation, collectively, but critically across our community and across the governments of our nation and the parliaments of our nation, to make a radical difference in closing the gap once and for all between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. I thank you for your attention.


The Carney is not just completing the set, she is much more than the fourth and final US ship in this group to Homeport in Spain to reinforce a centuries-old partnership. No, you are making real the concept, the idea, that we stand together with our allies in common defense against common threats. It is one thing to talk about protecting your allies, but quite another to bring 7,000 tons of cutting edge capability to steam off their shores and face down our mutual enemies.


Greetings to all my international dear music friends. I am Jane Shea from the Shanghai Conservatory of Music. The name of the piece I just played is called The Colorful Clouds Chasing the Moon. It is one of the most often played Chinese piano pieces on the worldwide music stage. Perhaps you will ask me, how can I obtain the score? Here comes the good news. This book, in my hand, is the new worldwide publication and released by the G. Hannah Publishers. I was very happy and honored to have served as editor. In this edition, you will see ten popular Chinese piano pieces composed or transcribed by eight distinguished Chinese composers. These ten Chinese piano works have had a wide influence on the history of Chinese piano composition. Among them are not only pieces that are fantastic for children to learn to play. There is also a repertoire for more advanced pianists. These pieces showcase the ethnic characteristics and folk songs of different regions in China. Lastly, the piece called Adieu at Yangguan allows pianists to experience the charm of ancient Chinese music and poetry. I do really hope this edition will open the door for the world to better conform to Chinese music. I can't wait to invite you to join me and start this wonderful music journey delving into Chinese music together.


So we've learned some special factorizations like the difference of squares and a perfect square trinomial. We've seen that you can factor out GCDs, but it turns out that factoring quadratics can be a little bit more difficult than that. Because after all, when you multiply out a binomial, if you have something like x minus 2 times x plus 3, when you multiply these things out, you're going to get an x squared, which tells us we're going to have a quadratic here, right? You're going to get x times 3, you're going to get a negative 2x, and then you're going to get a negative 6 right here. Combining these middle terms, you're going to end up with x squared plus x minus 6. And this is what we typically refer to as the FOIL method, right? Well, the thing is if I gave you x squared plus x minus 6 and I had to factor that, we have to essentially reverse this FOIL method to get back the factorization that's up here. How does one do that? Well, if we do this process backwards, the idea is this middle term was actually the combination of two like terms. So we have to replace the x with a 3x minus a 2x, and then we factor from there, right? But how do you decide what to break these things apart from? What clues do we have about these numbers 3 and negative 2 right here? Well, you'll notice that the 3 and 2 came about from taking the product of the outside terms and the product of the inside terms, for which you take the first term times, the first term times the last term, that's where the 3x came from, right? And then you take the inside terms, we'll talk together to get negative 2x right there. So, okay, this is the combination of the outside and the inside terms, but can we find any evidence about them? Well, what we have in front of us are the first terms and the last terms, the negative 6 right here. And so it turns out that we can kind of work this thing backwards in the following way. What we're going to do is we're going to take these numbers right here, the first terms and the last terms. We're going to multiply them together. You take the coefficient there.  Taking this negative 6, we're going to look for another factorization of negative 6, such as 3 and negative 2, right? Notice that's negative 6 factors as 3 and negative 2. The significance of this though, is that when you combine 3 and negative 2 together using addition, 3 minus 2 equals 1. So, when it comes to this reverse foil process, what we want to do is we're going to take the product of the leading coefficient in the constant term. In this situation, this would give us a 4, a negative 4, 2 times negative 2 equals negative 4. We then have to look for factors of negative 4 that add up to be this middle number right here, the 3. And so this takes a little bit of experimentation, but notice that 4 times negative 1 multiplies to give you negative 4, but it adds together to give us 3. And so such a pair, 4 and negative 1, we're going to refer to this as a magic pair. And I like to think of, like Hercules is going to search for the magic pair upon the tree of Poseidon or something like that. I know it's not the right type of pair, but you get the idea, it makes it much more majestic that way. But we're looking for this magic pair, a pair of numbers which will multiply together to give us the first and last term, but adds together to give us the middle term. Because if we do that, we're going to replace the middle term with this magic pair. So we're going to see that 2x squared plus 4x plus a negative x right here minus 2. We're going to break it up here because after all, if you put these things back together, 4x and negative x gives you a 3x. So we've just broken the number up like that. Well, why are we going to do that? What do we do next? The thing to do next is we use a technique which is called factoring by groups. If you have four terms in your polynomial, you're going to put the first two into a group and you're going to put the second two into a group. That's all there is, the first two and the last two. And then amongst those groups, you look for the GCD. So we couldn't find a GCD for the whole thing, right? 2x squared 3x minus 2. There's no factor of x that's common to all of them and there's no common divisors 2, 3, 2, right? We can't pull a GCD out of everything, but if you look at the groups, right? The first group, 2x squared plus 4x, you could factor out a 2x. That would leave behind x plus 2. And then looking at the second group right here, we could factor out a negative one. That's common to both of them. Take out the negative one, you're left with an x plus 2. And then notice what we have here is that what's left over is the x plus 2 and the x plus 2. Even though it's a binomial, this is now a common factor which we can then factor out from those. And this then gives us the 2x minus 1 and then this also gives us an x plus 2. And this gives us the factorization. This will be mean by this reverse foil method. You look for a magic pair and then you factor by groups to finish this thing off. And if you have any doubt if this is the right factorization, work it out again. 2x times x is an x squared. Negative one times two is a negative two. And then you're going to get a 2x times two, which is a 4x, a negative x, which adds together to give us a 3x. And Bob's your uncle, that is exactly the thing we started off with. We have the correct factorization. And so when we set this thing equal to zero, we can now apply the zero product property. To see that 2x minus one equals zero or x plus two equals zero. Solving the first one, we add one divided by two. We see that x would equal one half. And then the other one, just to track two, we're going to get that x is negative two. And so we've now found the correct solutions to this quadratic equation. Alright, so that's kind of a, you know, it can be a challenging concept at first. Let's do another example to illustrate this. Let's solve the quadratic equation 2x squared equals x plus three. When it comes to quadratic equations, we always put in the standard form first. We didn't move all of the terms to the other side of the equation. So we get 2x squared minus x minus three equals zero. You don't have to put things on the left-hand side, but I really like the leading coefficient to be positive. That is the coefficient of the x squared. So that's why I moved everything to the left-hand side. So now I do a quick run-through. I don't see any GCDs to factor out. There's no special factorization. This is not a perfect square trinomial. Difference of squares only applies when you have two terms, a binomial. So that doesn't apply in this situation. So we're going to have to do this reverse foil process. So look at the first coefficient and the last coefficient. This is going to give us two times negative three, which is negative six. We need to find factors that add up to B, factors of negative six that add up to negative one. Now this is really close to what we did earlier, right? You'll actually notice that, wait a second, we already have a magic pair, right? Notice that negative three plus two is equal to negative one.  You just have to pluck it. It's this proverbial low-hanging fruit, horrible pun I know, but it'll leave a message in your mind there. So we're going to break the negative one up to be negative three X with a two X. So you're going to get two X squared minus three X. That's the first group. And then the second group is going to be a two X minus three. This is equal to zero. Now sometimes people ask, well, which of the numbers do you put first? So I do negative three and then two or two and then negative three. It turns out it doesn't matter. You'll get the correct factorization, whichever way you put them. The intermediate steps will look a little bit different, but in the end you'll get the correct thing. So when you look at the first one, what's your common divisor? The biggest thing you can pull out is an X. So we factor out an X that leaves behind two X minus three. When you look at the second one, what's the biggest thing you can take out? Well, we're tempted to say, oh, there's nothing common to both. I can't take out anything. But that's not exactly true. We can always take out a one because again, when you factor out a one, it doesn't really do anything. So when you say like there's nothing in common, what you really mean is that one is the greatest common divisor. And as we must factor out something, we're going to factor out a one. But this is fortuitous because since if you've, if you chose your magic pair correctly, then these terms right here should be identical. And if we factor out the two X minus three as that common divisor, you're going to get two X minus three and then X plus one equals zero. And so then by the zero product properties, zip zappities up, we're going to get that two X minus three equals zero or X plus one equals zero. And solving these two linear equations, the first one will add three divided by two. We're going to get that X equals three halves. And then for the second one, you're just going to minus one on both sides and see that X equals negative one. And this is going to give us the solution here. And so this idea of reverse foiling, that is, you find a magic pair and then use the factoring by group techniques. This can help us factor many, many, many quadratic polynomials and help us solve many, many quadratic equations. It does depend on the fact that we have to be able to find a magic pair, which is not always an easy thing to do, which is why we'll present some alternative methods shortly. But when a magic pair is easy to find, then it turns out this is a very, very effective way of solving a quadratic equation.


Hello, welcome to SSUniTek Sushilis side and today we are going to see about the slowly changing dimension type 1. So first we need to understand what is slowly changing dimension and then we need to discuss about the SCD type 1. So what was the next slide to understand about the SCD? So what is slowly changing dimension? So a slowly changing dimension is a dimension that stores and manage both current and historical data over time in the data warehouse. It is considered and implemented as one of the most critical ETL task in tracking the history of the dimension record. So what does it mean? So it is saying in the data warehouse we will be having the dimension tables. Those are rarely going to update. So on that we will be going to implement the slowly changing dimension like if it will be going to replace the existing value. Second it will be going to keep the historical data there. So that we will see how we can manage all those. So in the type 1 the new data overwrites the existing data. Thus the existing data is lost as not stored anywhere else. So let us assume we are having a source and that source is having the data for the item. So if we are going to load that item information into the destination so simply it will be inserted. By the next time once we will get the data then it is required to check whether the data is available in the destination table or not. If data is already there then there is no need to do anything. If data is not there then we will be inserting data. If any record is updated at the source then we will be updating those records into the destination. So this is the STD type 1. So let me go into the browser and we will try to understand the requirement there. So here we are if we can go in the blob storage under this input folder then we are having the item details.csv file. So it is having the information for the item id, variant id then the item name, variant name, warehouse, zone bin. So all these are the data available in the source file. So as we can see the combination of the item and variant is the unique combination. So like this is the composite primary key for this table. So we want to load this data into the SQL Server table and here as of now we don't have any data in this table. So once we can refresh this by pressing control R so we can verify here we don't have any data. So once we will be going to execute our package data will be loaded here. So how we can implement the SCD. So we can go into the Azure data factory and here let me try to add a new data flow. So this data flow we are going to create for the SCD type 1. So let me call this as SCD type 1. Now let me on the data debug option here. So first what we need to do we need to select the source. So as we have already created the source for the file of the item details under this blob storage. So we can click on this add source. Then here we need to find out the data set that we have created. So we can see the data sets. So this is the data set we have already created. Let me try to open this. So here we can verify like this is pointing to the input folder. Then the item details dot CSV file. So the same file which we have opened here. Let me close this. Here we can go into the data preview and under the data preview once we refresh then we can see it will be having the data. So here as we can see the data but the item ID and the variant ID both are coming as an string but in the DB side it is having the integer columns. So we have to update the schema of this so we can go in the projection. Then here we can change the schema from a string to integer for the item ID and for the variant ID both. So it is updated from a string to integer go to the data preview and try to refresh it again. So this time we will be able to see the data but the data type of those column will be integer as we can see here. So once we have done this then we have to use the alter row transformation. So we have already discussed about the alter row transformation in detail. If you haven't watched that video so I will provide the link of that video in the description of this video. So you can watch that video before going forward. So here what we need to do we want to use the absurd property of the alter row. So what absurd property will do it will be going to update if any changes are happening in the existing data and if data is not there then it will be inserting those data. So here we can see the alter row condition. So here we can see the insertive, updateive, deleteive and the absurdive. So we want to do the absurd of this and here the condition. So I am going to do this for all the rows so 1 equals to 1. So it is indicating for all the rows absurd will be happening. Now once we can go in the data preview and try to refresh it so we should be able to see all the data which is available in the source site. So here as we can see so all the property which is coming the first column value which is the absurd indicating. Now let me try to click on this plus symbol and here we just want to dump this into the destination. So once we selected the destination here as a sync so we need to select the data set. We have already created the data set for the scd type 1 so I am going to select this one. Let me open so I can verify this. So this is pointing to the same sequence over and the table which is the item details scd type 1 and this is the item details scd type 1. So this is the same table. Let me close this. Let me go into the settings. So under the setting we can see the update methods what method we are going to apply. So instead of only insert we are using the absurd. So once we have done this absurd then what it is asking it is asking the key value. So what is the key value here so the key value is the item id and item variant. So we need to select the item id the first column. Let me add another column so the combination is the unique which is the variant id. So combination of this will be checking if that is not there then it will insert if that is there then it will be updated. So after doing that let me go into the data preview it is showing some error. So let me click on this error. So it is saying key column item id does not exist in the mapping. So let me go into the mapping side and disable this and here we can see everything looks okay. Now go to the data preview and try to represent. So this time we should be able to see all the data here. So what it is doing we are fetching the data from the source and then by using alter row we are applying the absurd condition and in the sync we are going to apply the absurd in the settings and specify the key columns as the item id and variant id. So this is what we have done. So after doing that let me try to save this and let me add a new pipeline here and this pipeline let me use this scd type 1 and let me try to execute it. So once it will be executed we should be able to see all the records into the destination table. So as of now we don't have any data as we have already seen so all the data should be loaded from the source table to the sync table in the first execution. So here as we can see it got executed with success. Let me go into the SSMS and try to refresh by pressing ctrl r. So it will be going to refresh and we should be able to see all the data as we can see. Now what we want to do let me try to update this warehouse from warehouse 001 to 080 something like this for the id 1 and variant 1 and let me at the same time let me delete this 4 and 1 like the item id 4 and the variant id as 1. So that we can see is deleted. So what it will do in the next execution it will be updated the warehouse from 080 to 001 for the item id 1 and variant 1 and will be inserting 1 record for the item id 4 and variant id 1. Now go back to the azio data factory and try to debug it again. So it will be going to execute and data will be updated and inserted into the destination table. So we have to wait little bit on this. So it got executed with success. Let me go back to the SSMS and try to refresh by pressing ctrl r. So it will be going to have the 9 record again. So as we can see 9 records here. So 41 is inserted this and here the first row like the warehouse is updated from warehouse 82 warehouse 1. So this is what is scd type 1 in the next video we will see about the scd type 2. So in the scd type 2 we will be keeping the information of the historical data. So thank you so much for watching this video see you in the next video.


This study examined the effectiveness of three different psychotherapies, motivational interviewing, motivational enhancement therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy in treating patients with substance use disorder. It found that all three treatments showed positive effects, but that combining two or more of these approaches may be most effective. This article was authored by Mafia Shatsati, Sanaah Hafeez, Kazeera Boss, and others.


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel critical over the years You know about a quiet place in this video here today talking about that prequel that's coming out Not next year anymore. It's now been pushed because it was supposed to come out I did a video like two months ago supposed to come out September 2023 not gonna happen now coming out in 2024 on the date of March 8th of 2024 so the movie we know I've touched on this in my other video It's titled day one a quiet place day one I guess we can call it a quiet place three, but they seem it from what I've gathered They don't I guess want us to consider just the third entry in the series But it is I feel like they still are what they're gonna do is still call the main storyline with the Abbott family a quiet place Three and I mean if you call it that that's fine. I honestly think it's best that you don't know in reality This is gonna be considered three to most people. So hopefully this one Isn't the only one that has a subtitle Hopefully the actual a quiet place three with the family has a subtitle as well But again that movie now has a release date of March 8th, 2024 to my knowledge the actual fifth movie that John Krasinski is expected to direct with him or not with him But with him back as a director and Emily Blunt leading the cast that film is expected to be out in 2025 so we'll see if any of this actually plays out how it's Starting to be planned initially And hopefully there's no other hurdles was again day one was supposed to be out next year now You're not gonna be revisiting this universe until 2024 in March, so it's we know it's gonna be directed by the person that directed pig Who's which are Nicholas Cage is gonna be directed by Michael Sernofsky? And it's again just a spin-off movie They're considering it that is set in the same universe and gonna be mostly centered on that initial Day of when the aliens came to the earth now We know that we saw that already as like a flashback sequence at the start of part two a quiet place part two However Presumably of course it's gonna center on a different family with different group of characters And we'll see what they were going where they were up to during this initial attack and just go from there There might be some cool things that tie them into the habits or maybe some little knots to the habits And maybe some connections that they share as far as a family that maybe I'm gonna assume ends up surviving and I hope hopefully it's not something that's overly Well, actually, maybe it's best if it is something that's overly gruesome in its presentation Honestly because with the last two movies we have this tight-knit family here with the habits If they're gonna be the heart and soul of this of this universe because I know they said they Hope that this can grow into this universe. I guess like the walking dead before the big screen If it grows into this universe, I'm fine with the habits being our heart centerpiece Kind of like our big three of the characters importance in them in the series in this world But if you're gonna have spin-off movies, I hope we don't play it safe with those characters in these spin-offs I would rather us see something a little bit more on the arm over the edge something a little bit more Something that goes there in the sense that your characters are not gonna be riddled with plot armor And I'm not saying that there's something wrong with having plot armor initially But over time I think as you keep on revisiting the habits one of them is gonna have to go We already lost the already lost the father I guess depending on how many years later you actually can set any future sequels with the habits in they would of course Ultimately end up losing I guess their mother maybe even maybe even their infant sibling or one of the other two kids could end up Dying during this invasion that's occurring on the earth from these creatures so I'm excited about what quiet place day one. It's not coming out next year. It's coming out in 2024 My only hope though with this universe still is that they don't do anything Like they don't overstay their welcome. Honestly, that's all I really don't want But I hope I have a feeling that of course honestly just like any other thing when it comes to this because it's still a business As long as we continue to go out and see these movies We're gonna be in a walking dead situation where you have countless seasons countless storylines Countless movies just coming out left and right some are gonna be hit or miss this might be our next Saw series honestly not movies that come they're coming out once a year, but it could be like the biggest thing Since since saw since the launch of the Conjuring universe even This is like I would say the next biggest thing if they can actually kick off a legitimate universe of movies that Oh that can stay for over 10 years or so Release be relevant for a decade like saw did like the Conjuring universe is done if they can somehow Accomplish that then it'll be the biggest thing I would say since the introduction of the Conjuring universe for the horrors Horror genre specifically in the sci-fi sub genre of it I'm very into the narratives. We've had so far. I do like John Krasinski as a director I know at one point he wasn't even wanting to direct the sequel but he ended up doing it He seems like he's gonna direct the third one when we go back to visit the Abbott family I really am just hoping that when we revisit the Abbott family that we take some risk with the narrative And I'm not saying that it's a necessary a necessity for one of them to die But depending on what you have to offer as far as like new characters Maybe start considering doing some different things But other than the same old same old You know, they can they can live but don't make them So Like I don't want it to be written in a way that makes it so Impossible to believe that they're still alive all three of them and the kid Honestly, the kid should be the most the I feel like the kid probably should have the most plot armor Obviously, even if the kid were to die if they had the little baby die It's not gonna be something we see on screen that little child has been used as an effective plot device to build tension in Both the sequel and the original movie So if they want to keep exploring something like that in the third outing, I'm not against that It also of course depends on how many years later. It said assuming there's gonna be a time jump because the baby, of course We'll have to grow so I guess it can't always be this source of Tension building being used as that type of plot device that's been very effective so far I guess it can always be like that But I just hope that when we revisit the Abbott's we get something that takes a little bit more risk Maybe makes them feel a lot more at danger and make the stakes feel a little bit higher So far, of course going into the third one any situation they're placed in I won't feel like they're in real danger Unless the envelope is pushed enough to make me believe it And again with the whole day one scenario, we know that's the move we have coming next that prequel Don't know really too many plot specifics there So we only know it's gonna be exploring a little bit more for a longer period of time The opening of what we saw in a quiet place to the day one of when they arrived on earth We're just gonna be focusing on a different group of people John Krasinski and Emily Blunt both are not both are not expected to reprise their roles in any shape for this prequel So it's gonna be completely fresh ideas set within the same universe with a new storyline Involving the same creatures. We'll see how that plays out if you haven't already of course make sure you subscribe turn on post If you check never miss a video in the description, I will have links to all my social media accounts I am on Facebook Twitter and Instagram you can message me there, of course And then there's any movies news or reviews like me to cover in the future with all that in mind guys I will see you in the next video