Yn ystod o'r ffordd, dweud yng Nghymru, mae'n bwysig i ddweud ysgol ac ymddangos i'r ffordd yn ei wneud am ymddiadau i'r ffordd yn yng nghymru, yng Nghymru, yn Ymddiadau Dynedig, yn Damos Cllosys, yng Nghymru Econwysol, a'r gweithio yng nghymru, 2016. Welcome also to those of you watching us live online at weforum.org. Now the purpose of this issue briefing is to look at the South Africa's economic outlook to provide an in-depth learning about South Africa's prospects and challenges for the year ahead. Those of you that are familiar with this format know that we don't have a lot of time that I keep my remarks to a minimum. I'm going to introduce my esteemed colleague here, Pravin Gordon, Minister of Finance of South Africa. We've little more than to say that he's been described to me this morning by one of the participants here as the best thing that's happened to the South African economy in quite some time. The best thing is sitting out there, you see? Not in this room actually, so somebody else. You have fans that you're not even aware of. We'll have time for questions and answers, but first I would like to ask the Minister to spend a bit of time outlining what his personal priorities are, how he's going to restore the country to sustainable growth in the year ahead and further, further way into the medium and long term. Thank you, and thank you very much for this opportunity. It's nice to see both the leading analysts and commentators in front and fellow South Africans at the back. It's comfortable in the Congress centre, but come to the southern tip of Africa is far more comfortable. I can assure you, you don't need the coats and the ties, and you'll be having a great deal of fun. The outlook for South Africa. Firstly, I mean, we work as a government team. No finance minister can succeed in this. He has reasonably good support from government as a whole, and over the past few weeks we've worked hard as a government to understand our current environment, understand its challenges, and begin to ask ourselves some tough questions about what we need to do differently. Secondly, South Africa is part of the commodity producing countries. It's part of the emerging markets that are currently under stress because of a variety of things that are happening, and a global environment that's volatile, where lots of corrections are taking place, and which have either intended or unintended effects in the financial sector in particular, but elsewhere in the real economy as well, which result in greater uncertainty, particularly for the business sector. So a lot of the focus of our work is about how we create greater confidence both amongst foreign investors in our debt market, but also in the real economy, but in particular amongst the African business. And therefore, leading up to Davos, we've had good discussions with our business sector to prepare for this eventuality. Secondly, obviously the numbers seem to indicate certainly the IMF numbers yesterday for 2016 that we might be looking fairly dismal. I think for the challenge we face is to see what we can do differently to surprise the IMF and others a little bit this year. And our numbers which we will publish on the 24th of February when we table the country's budget might indicate slightly more optimistic numbers than what the IMF is saying at the moment. The struggling areas of the economy, agriculture, manufacturing and mining, mining for reasons that are very obvious and that's a fairly general phenomenon. And an additional factor is of course drought. Some of the traditional supporting parts of the economy like the services sector and so on is slowing down a little, so that's an area that we need to focus our minds on and our actions on more importantly to see how we can get better results of that. Exports seem to be improving and obviously the weaker currency is a huge supporting factor but demand on the other side of the border is equally important, whether it's from Europe or the rest of Africa. And one of the issues that we are looking at together with business is how can we enable business to actually get involved in more tradeables, more effective winning of market share, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa because there's a lot of space to be gained in the construction and generally in the services sector as well. So focusing in certain parts of the real economy and supporting that particularly through investment in infrastructure and undertaking some tough reforms, particularly in the education and skills development area, in the area of delivery of infrastructure in terms of creating greater efficiency and better spending of public funds, creating co-investment opportunities for business and government. In our IPP programme for renewable technology is one of the best in the world at the moment, understated at the moment. We tend to understate ourselves in South Africa but it's attracted hundreds of billions of dollars both from South African institutions and from foreign investors as well and there's another round that's coming as well which will significantly change co-investment in that particular area but change our energy picture as well. I think last year in Davos, I wasn't here, we were under watch so to speak for the energy situation. We've stabilized that and the renewable side is introducing I think about 2,000 megawatts at the moment and that's going to increase incrementally in the next couple of years to come as well. So restoring confidence, making sure that we undertake key reforms in delivery of infrastructure, skills development and education, greater attention to how we focus. There are tens of billions of rounds of business incentives either through the tax system or through direct rebates to business is another area that we want to look at so we boost the right areas of the economy. Giving a lot more attention to small and medium-sized businesses in South Africa. Here Martin Wolf after his visit to South Africa talked about some of the legacy issues that we still confront as a society both on the social side and on the economic side as well. And given the dominance of two or three companies and key areas of the economy, the rise of the small and medium-sized business sector has been very limited and it's an area that we need to give a lot more attention to together with building entrepreneurship on our side as well. Last point, we're focusing a lot particularly in the new area of the oceans economy and how do we tackle the issue of limited demand for our commodities differently from just exporting where the demand is actually limited through a program called Operation Pakistan which together with business and other sectors is looking at the details of what goes on and how do we implement those details differently or think of more creative ideas as well. Often there's skepticism about the stalling of FDI into South Africa some of the more recent examples I've got in front of me are from our department of trade and industry, Mercedes-Benz 2.4 billion-run announcement on increased investment, General Motors 1 billion-runs, Ford 3 billion-runs, the Meta Group 400 million-runs, BMW 6 billion-runs. It goes on particularly in the auto sector. Beijing Automobile Corporation 11 billion-runs high-sense which has created an operation in South Africa has also made some investments and more recently Unilever and Johnson & Johnson have increased their production capacity as well. So clearly we need to increase our FDI, create more confidence, work more coherently as a country from amongst both business and labour and government as well and I think we can do better as we go forward. But as I say, crises are useful. It brings the truth to your face and it forces you to think more creatively and differently, understand your challenges perhaps more deeply than you would have if things were comfortable. So both 2008 and 2009 taught us that to some extent but we thought that just getting a massive stimulus going from the fiscal side and some efforts from the monetary side will help us to overcome the kind of challenges we had post 2009. That hasn't been the case. So we've got to take a harder look at some of our structural constraints and begin to deal with them in a lot more assertive way. Thank you very much. Thank you. Now it's customary this time to open the floor to questions but for the first time I notice one of our audience actually has the microphone already, Alicog. Are you hogging the microphone there for a reason? Okay, it's your own. Any other questions? For our audience, can you mention your name? Yes, alecogbusnews.com in Johannesburg. Can you give us any clarity on how you're going to reign back on public sector spending and the second thing is your old stamping ground south African revenue services.  Do we take one at a time? Let's see if future hands are public sector and that's S.A.R.S. Lady there in the back in the third row. Afternoon, my name is Matsimodise, the managing director of Simodisa and I'm essentially an entrepreneurship activist. To keep my question brief, venture capital is key to enhance and enable this fourth industrial revolution because technology and appins it. What role will the government play in terms of creating VC right now basically nonexistent? And how does that then integrate with a partnership with a private sector? Okay, so just in the front of them so we have them in public sector spending, S.A.R.S. venture capital. Sir. I'm Martin Wolfe from the Financial Times. The two questions which are linked, it seems that this is an extraordinary opportunity to the crisis who said to relaunch fundamental reform in South Africa. This goes beyond 2016. What are you thinking are likely to be your priorities? In particular, it seems to me the biggest challenge of all you have is persistently high unemployment which is the cancer economically and socially and what do you plan that could really make a difference to this long sounding problem? Okay, so let's go to Alex's question. We've said, interestingly when we look back when these sorts of challenges are put to us about public spending, South Africa has actually had a very good record over the past 20 years on the fiscal side. We haven't breached any of the commitments we've made to the South African public and to other stakeholders at all in the last 20 years. And so post 2012-2013 we said belt tightening, cut down on wastage and we've had interesting results as a result of some of those efforts that we've put in. We will continue the fiscal consolidation path that we've indicated. We will be as tough on ourselves as we need to be. For example, one of the strains on the fiscal are some of the state-owned companies and you've heard me say very publicly from the day of my appointment, December 14, 15, that these entities must stop relying on the fiscal and our aim will be to retain them to some kind of profitability and financial sustainability and take the strain of the fiscal so that we can put the money where it begins to make a difference in terms of growth and job creation as well. On the revenue service there's a simple statement that what we want is, as part of our democratic project, we need to build solid state institutions which are not dependent on individuals, they're dependent on the values you instill, the integrity you have and in the case of a tax and customs administration the fairness with which you deal with the public and the kind of legitimacy that you hold in the public eye. But also you need a different kind of sophistication given the kind of discourse that's taking place in the OECD, in the G20 about basic erosion and profit shifting. It's a nice catch-all phrase but it hides a lot of complex transactions that banks of lawyers and other professionals are working on full-time in the effects of both developed countries, physicists and ourselves as well. So what we want there is stability at the end of the day, a skilled leadership that will take us in the kind of direction we want to go in and build on the good reputation that the revenue service has. So the nitty gritty, I'm still going to get on top of all the issues there and we'll come back to that when you're back in South Africa. Venture capital is clearly, I think, one of the challenges. So we've made some changes already to begin to provide at least in policy terms for venture capital and a bit of money has been set aside. I think our contribution to small businesses is too fragmented in too many different places. Now that we have a ministry and a department, hopefully we can concentrate those resources and begin to talk a lot more actively to the private sector, my own view is that we need a few building around set aside. But don't ask me where we're going to get the money from just yet. But at least the objective is clear about what we actually need to do to build the kind of entrepreneurship culture with the help of the private sector as well. Fundamental reforms. For some years, Martin, both the IMF and the OECD have one-liners in their reports about South Africa. Your product market is very concentrated. It's a nice euphemism for saying that you have quite significant oligopolistics industries in South Africa. Given our history and the way things have happened, but more recently in our country, there's a fascinating, let's call it, discussion going on about what did 1994 give us. And the bottom line is that it gave us equal rights for all South Africans and a democracy. What it didn't give us is the equalization of the economic scales. And I think here those who have wealth and have economic power and those who've already accumulated some over the last 20 years or so need to have a very different kind of discourse now for saying how do we restructure our economy in a way in which there's greater inclusivity. Not just between poor and rich, but between different types of business categories as well. Because there's certainly a kind of impatience developing that we need to build on. But secondly, from the state side, we've been giving lots of assistance in monetary terms and sometimes technical terms as well. But we're also learning that not all of that achieves the kind of objectives you set initially. Because there's a long line of delivery from an intent and the actual impact on the ground. And so we've got to learn to do a few things differently as well in terms of the kind of support that we provide to restructure. But there's no doubt also that all South Africans from all classes and backgrounds need to contribute to this venture. And on last Friday we had a meeting between just a handful of government ministers in a fairly large delegation of over 40-50 people at the CEO level from the business sector. Some of them are present here today. And there were other discussions in the course of the last few months as well. All of which indicates that business leaders now begin to understand the importance of inclusion, the importance of social cohesion and for us to be able to discuss the race issue in a constructive way so that we can capitalise on our diversity and use it as a positive factor in terms of where we go. So some of the things we need to do is, if you like, deconcentrate the economy, but more importantly grow a new generation of entrepreneurs, give a lot more support to the skills development sector in our economy, although that's a more medium-term objective to ask the private sector to absorb more people as apprentices, as part of the learning scheme, as part of the subsidy scheme we have as well. So lots of opportunities for the private sector to come to the party, and government is doing some of its work through public employment programmes at the moment as well, where billions of rounds are being spent on an annual basis. So the skills area, retooling, if you like, are a manufacturing sector, so it becomes a lot more aggressive and competitive and has a drive to win market share. Because without that, what are we actually doing? We're only supplying consumption in South Africa. We're not getting into the export trade as assertively we can. The services sector is also a key opportunity area, as is what is now called the oceans economy, where we're working with countries like Norway, which is offering a fair amount of technical assistance to South Africa as well. So there are any number of areas which I outlined earlier on, which we can work on. Some of that we need to do in the short term so that we can have what is called a demonstration effect, and some will take the medium term in order to demonstrate this impact. Just going to the front row, please. Wait till we get the microphone first, thanks. Another Financial Times columnist, I'm afraid. Gideon Rachman, two quick questions. One is obviously you came in after a week of apparent chaos over the appointment of the Finance Minister. How much long-term damage do you worry that that did to South Africa's image? And another image-related question I saw, I think it was a transparency international survey which said that 80% of South Africans feel that South Africa has become more corrupt over the last year. Are they right? On the first one, I think if that was an event that took place in the middle of the 2000s, it wouldn't have mattered too much because we were on a nice swing of 4% growth, large amounts of revenue coming in, a commodity boom, and the economy doing fairly well. On this occasion, I think it gave us very useful feedback about how the markets can respond to events like this, and I think it's a compliment to the leadership of the country A, that they listened carefully to keep people in the business sector but also within the political organisation itself and very quickly acted to stabilise the situation. So hopefully having a new old hand at the till might actually help us to restore some of that confidence. And I think in statements since then, all of us both within government and the ruling party have indicated very clearly that we want to continue the fiscal prudence, fiscal consolidation, cut out waste and begin to aggressively attend to some of the issues that I talked about earlier on as well in respect of the economy. So there's been a slight setback but I think we can win that if not just we talk the right words but we do the right things as a country and that's both the private sector and ourselves as well. Transparency international, I think that's a perception index as you know. So I think that there's some petty bribery that's been on the increase recently. Traffic officers trying to capitalise on a few hundred rounds here and there on motorists who find themselves defenseless. Some in the bureaucracy doing similar things. There are some issues around procurement areas as well. A, we are aware of it. B, what we need to talk a lot more about in the FT is how predatory behaviour is very much part of the current and past capitalist systems, whatever form it has evolved through over the last hundred, hundred and fifty years. And what kind of values and models and integrity do you want to set up and checks and balances within government itself in order that we can undermine these sorts of phenomena. So at the end of the day, Gideon, we need to, and I think there's a significant number of us in government and in the private sector, want to restore integrity and get the right value system going. But it's not going to be an easy task because people will look for a quick way out. Everybody in South Africa who's been repressed for a couple of hundred years or a couple of decades wants to drive the best BMW that the neighbour drives and get a better house than they can actually afford. Ask the bankers here, they know what kind of loan applications they get for the next house that is to be built or to be bought. And so in that sense, these knocks that we take and rises interest rates are a good reminder. Live within your means, both as a country and as households. And save as much as you can. There's a current debate in South Africa as well. And we'll work our way out of this. But it's not going to be easy. Greed is not an easily counted phenomenon in the upper middle classes, but elsewhere as well. And so I think all of us in our respective countries have a challenge, but that's no excuse for South Africa. Coming from where we come from and the kind of struggle that we've put up over the years, we need to do better. And we will, I think, over the next few years. Have a hand there. Just sir, before you do this, just develop that thinking about the new old hand. What are the key learnings, the key experiences from your previous time in government that help you meet your challenges? That no economic moment is the same as the previous one for the start. So things are very good in South Africa. If you look at the build up to elections in May 2014, it's three months after I got into office and the new administration of President Zuma got into office that the effect of the recession hit home. So one of the first public announcements I had to make in about July when Parliament opened in late July was we're going to have a deficit of 50 billion rounds on the revenue side. So the second lesson is speak the truth, speak the facts to the country, win their confidence that there are certain measures that need to be taken in the interest of everyone concerned and we'll sort of come through crises that we have. We have these that we live in a very interconnected and interdependent world as Martin and others have written endlessly. And so South Africa is not a little island that you can talk about on its own. Once, if all of you would remember the taper tantrum of, I think it's May 2013, just a couple of sentences from the Fed Chairman send ripples throughout all of the emerging markets. The care with which the current Fed chair is and has been communicating to ensure that emerging markets are not damaged in the same way as they were done to before is an indication that a lot of lessons were learned in this period as well. And the thought is that both then and now geopolitics plays a part in economic developments as well, either in the form of posing risks or continuing to, and that's the worry about the fourth industrial revolution. Sounds nice, digitalisation, using modern technology, interconnectivity, et cetera. But what's going to happen to the billions of people that are on the margin where the digital divide is still there in many of our countries or parts of countries as well where everybody is not as skilled as they need to be to be absorbed into these new developments. The economists, amongst others, have written about a jobless society and a jobless economy, I think nine months ago, six months ago. Now that's not the scenario you want to tell young people today that they will face in ten years' time. So global connectivity in the sense of coming up with answers to inequality, the social divide, the pickety phenomenon, the role of the financial markets in relation to the real economy, we're all very interesting lessons of that time, which haven't disappeared, by the way. In fact, the threat that we all face is those divides will increase and that geopolitics is presenting more and more challenges as each year goes rather than using international institutions to dampen those challenges, regrettably. I've had several conversations with South African media over the past few days, as I always do, ahead of these meetings. A lot of the questions often are about the fourth industrial revolution and the natural question is the fear of unemployment, the displacement of jobs. What is your strategy about that, bearing in mind we are heading for a period of transformation? Transformation is always useful. What you want to be careful about in each instance is what's positive for society and the economy, both within a country and around a country, and how do you utilise that? We were just discussing that earlier today among some of my colleagues. My colleague, the Minister of Health, will say, no, that would be very interconnectivity, excellent, because as you know in certain parts of the world doctors that in one part helped to do nurses to do a diagnostic on a patient thousands of kilometres away. Now I believe they're even undertaking certain types of surgical procedures under the guidance of a doctor. Interconnectivity in terms of tracking trends around pregnancy or HIV and AIDS and tracking whether patients are compliant with the requirements to take medication at a particular time or not is another factor. In education where we have a shortage of skills in the mathematics and science area, again if you were an excellent mathematics teacher we could have you in Davos, but you could be teaching children in a thousand schools in South Africa. A one-hour lesson on how to undertake a particular mathematical exercise. And those are I think the pluses that we need to build on as well. Robots also will increase productivity and make both companies in a country look good. But that curve can't be an endless curve because somewhere along the line the costs at the societal level begin to come in. So I think we must anticipate some of that and ask ourselves how do we mitigate those risks when they do arise? Now we're running very perishly close to running out of time but the gentleman did have his hand up. Can we just have one more question please from the gentleman in the back? My name is Teranishi from Japanese newspaper Sakishinbun. I would like to ask about the BRICS Corporation. So after the financial crisis, we enjoy the economic recovery from the economic crisis thanks to the BRICS economic growth. But now China has a problem, the economy is growing, and also Russia and South Africa are the same kind of problem. So how do you see the possibility that the members of the BRICS to cooperate to respond to the current crisis? I think many of you will remember that when global growth was impacted quite seriously, 08, 09, 10, 2000, it's the quite strong stimulus packages that China, Russia, India, South Africa, Brazil and others put forward including the kind of measures that were taken by the monetary policy authorities that actually helped us to keep the world away from a great depression and not just suffer a great recession. We now have a situation where parts of the developed world, not all of them, Japan is still just above the deflationary level, are beginning to find their way out of the crisis. But I was at another session a while ago where commentators said if the United States during that very period to 008 to say 2012 had borrowed $10 trillion and invested it in infrastructure, they would have grown faster. And once again become an important engine room, together with India and China growing in the 6% to 7% region, that would have still kept global growth above the kind of estimates that we are actually seeing today. The second is that this fluctuation in sentiment which is accompanied by these massive capital movements and often back to the United States and out of and into emerging markets is one that we, let's be frank, we haven't found an answer to as a globe. Despite endless discussions in the G20, task forces that are going out of control are the element of the kind of financial aid elements that we're suffering as a globe. We've got no answer to some of those questions. In that panel session there was an asset manager from a fairly big US bank who was saying that trillions of dollars are sitting in, as she put it, in various corners of the world waiting for a moment when there will be sufficient confidence to invest that money. So the question for policymakers at a global level and in the big and leading economies, both emerging and developed, how do you inspire confidence in the global environment? How do you minimize these financial sector volatilities? Corrections and expansion and corrections again. We'll have different analyses about how these things work. The way in which the divergence is taking place between central bank policies just in the developed world is another area of instability, potentially or in real terms at the moment that people are concerned about as well. So G20 was set up to actually get some level of political or other economic cohesion in policy terms. It's coming apart in some ways and it needs to, how do you say, it needs to find its essential mission again in the current moment when we need new answers to where is new demand going to come from? How do we get growth but inclusive growth because that's the new direction we need to go in? How do we stop the divide increasing between developed and developing? Although in the net effect over the years is that we have a bigger mental class across the world today than you've ever had before, but you also have a very significant group of people that the World Bank talks about, the bottom 40%, that's so required to be attended to. So the globe as a whole has some tough questions to answer and we hope that taking a different strategic approach and if developing countries can manage their politics better in some instances and maybe claw back some of the or recover from some of the policy mishaps that they might have had at some stage in the recent past that you can have a world where both developed and developing big countries are once again taking us to 5, 6, 7% global growth and that will impact positively on others as well. Trade is also depressed at the moment as a result of these growth numbers and demand numbers which means that your demand factor is not there to generate the kind of trade that we actually require. Driving inclusive growth, investing in skills and education is going to be a busy year minister. Thank you very much indeed for your time. We're swish and we have to keep to our schedule. There are plenty more questions that could be asked but thank you very much indeed for joining us. Thank you for joining us here in the room and watching this live online.


What's going on guys? It's your boy dpj here today with another destiny video and today I have a new top five Lucky's kills of the week now if you enjoyed the video do smash that like button I do appreciate the support submit any badass clip You've got to the email address linked in the top of the video description, and I'll catch you guys on that next one Get the aftermath on one aftermath on three Five minutes remaining Don't be lost look at them fall


Hi, I'm Sandrine, head educator at Pruneos and today I want to talk about the Max Gloss. So the Max Gloss is a time-saving gloss, so it says you can work faster. When you apply the Max Gloss, you have to apply it to five fingers at the same time. If you are afraid that the gloss could run into the cuticles, you can also work four fingers at one time and then the thumb separately. So the curing times is 60 seconds for the light and 30 seconds full for the smart light. So there is absolutely no need to cure it more than the required timing. The Max Gloss will shine perfectly with the right timing. If you are curing more than the required timing or you are working finger by finger, after that your client at home can face some yellowing problem and you don't want that and you want your client to be happy. So stay close to the correct timing. Also, the Max Gloss has a sticky layer after curing and to remove the sticky layer, you have to use the non-aceton polish remover and don't forget to use enough product. So this was the do's and don'ts about the Max Gloss. I hope you enjoy it and I wish you a lot of success with this wonderful gloss.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com coming at you with 2020 Donnery's Optic Football Blaster Break number 198 with six Football mixer spots being given away at the end. So there'll be two different dice rolls one for the break and the second one For the giveaway part the break first big. Thanks to this group here for making it happen There's all 32 teams here. Let's roll it. Let's randomize it two and a six eight times for names and teams one two Three all right, and then two and a six eight times for the teams one two three and Eighth and final time after eight. We've got the Rams down to the Washington football team. All right, so I'm not gonna read out All these names. There's no trade window, but there you go. Here's the first half of the list right there It's 2020 so maybe mark Jalen hurts possibilities here You know, here's the rest of the list. Here's the chargers mark has the chargers as well. Sean a has the bangles Who knows what can pop out of here So let's get to it. Let's alphabetize by team and Let's print and rip and then we'll re randomize your names and then we'll see who Gets what there's the final printout hot off the presses. Thanks everyone for getting in For giving this a shot for making this happen. Good luck everybody. Let's see what we got Jeremy Chin Terry McLauren we got a Thought that was gonna be Joe Burrow for a second, but a pink Logan Wilson Jake Luton, and we've got a Jordan Love rookie phenoms relic for Gerardo and the Packers and we got a T Higgins rated rookie pink Which are exclusive to this set It could be it could be on his way to a really nice season by the time all said and done Sean with the bangles What else do we have here? KJ Hamler rated rookie hollow Another pink parallel torell Lewis and Deandre swift none none of the big quarterback named he did get the Jordan Love relic But no like pink parallels of the big quarterback names from this class. That's all okay. That's all good Okay, all good. Okay Who's gonna win those mixer spots? That's the whole point of this. Let's gather everybody's names again new dice new list Let's roll it and randomize that list Nine times this time six into three. So that's a different break top six after nine. Good luck one two three four five six seven eight and Ninth and final time after nine. It's only the top six. So from seven on down Very close Brian. No cigar, but seven on down sad times. I appreciate you trying Good news is that there are a couple more of these that we have to do to unlock that football mixer So maybe try again. We'll get them next time. Thank you for trying top six happy times because you're in the football mixer Eric is in so is Michael Sean a Gerardo John Beck and Mark Top six. Congrats to you. Thanks everybody for giving this a shot. I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye


Yankee third baseman. Josh, what do you think of the offense Trevino provided today early in the game? That was awesome. I mean, there's a big spot for us right there. You know, we've got a couple to today. Been having some good at bats. Obviously, it was a great job behind the plate, and he did that again today. What stood out to you about the way Severino was throwing? You know, I think early on, you know, he was kind of feeling for it just a little bit. And then by the end of it, he was just going right at him. And that was awesome. I think the three he got to forget who was sitting, we got to 3-1 and just went heater, heater, and finished. I think that was kind of the definition of his outing today towards the end. After the first inning, you guys didn't miss your chances.  Say that one more time? For the first inning, not scoring. Oh, I mean, you're not going to come through every time. But it was nice to be able to. I mean, our offense is going to give us opportunities throughout the game, and we know that. And we know that we don't have to necessarily, if we don't get the job done early on, that we're going to have more opportunities to do that. You weren't here last year, but Labour got a lot of criticism for his defense at short. What have you seen out of him at second base this year? I mean, that was a huge play for him to be able to go get that fly ball, infield fly ball. I mean, that was a tough play. And that was a big moment in that game right there. And I felt like that really shifted the momentum probably back in our corner. I've seen him really doing a good job of being ready for every pitch and ready to make a play. And his at bats have been great. Defensively, he's been great. And that's what we need.


Pick the Packers, among the underdogs. And if they can keep this game close, Aaron Jones is awesome. In the divisional round, they basically just made in their bell cow. He played 84% of the snaps. That was his second highest snap rate of the year. It was his highest in the game that Jamal Williams played. 21 carries and two targets in that game. He ran 20 routes, which was second most in the team behind Devonte Adams. And it makes sense because the Packers have been a better team when Aaron Jones has been in the field this year. 8.17 yards for pass attempt, and 5.67 yards for pass attempt when he's off. So like, they're a better team when he's out there. He's gonna be out there pretty much all the time. Maybe that's why they've been weird and they've been ahead. It's been more Jamal Williams there, I don't know. But like, I have more faith in them covering than I do the Titans. That does not mean I grade Aaron Jones above Derek Henry. I still grade Derek Henry above Aaron Jones, but I think they're in the same tier. So what are your thoughts on Aaron Jones? Yeah, I mean, so I alluded to this before, but I'm not the hugest Aaron Jones guy, not from a talent's perspective, but I've just always been wary of the workload. And I was wary of it last week because Jamal Williams was coming back. But now that we saw Aaron Jones play 84% of the snaps, like you said. He's not Aaron Jones anymore. He's not Aaron, it's a different player. Yeah, so I'm very much willing to change my opinion because that's what you should do whenever you have new information. And the 49ers defense is really tough. They're top eight in adjusted rushing defense based on the number of hours metrics. They're eighth there and they're second against the pass. But if you look at success rate allowed to running backs, they're 18th. So he could kind of maybe get some space. They might limit big plays, but Aaron Jones could be one of the paths to keeping it close and helping the Packers cover. So Aaron Jones, I'm not saying he's a priority play necessarily because I like Damian Williams so much. And I just don't have high expectations for the offense, but for the price, I don't think that I would hate it if he were my second back because I couldn't get to Derek Henry. Yeah, price considered, not considering other pieces in your lineup. Would you put Derek Henry above Aaron Jones or do you grade Aaron Jones higher? Wait, price considered? Yeah. I think realistically it's still Henry by a tad, but it's also realistically tough to play Derek Henry because of what else it does to your lineup. So I do put him higher. I think he's the better per dollar play, but that doesn't mean that I will actually end up with more Derek Henry than Aaron Jones even though I would want to. Yeah, I think that's probably the right way to view it and I'm in there too where overall, like if I could choose, I'd pick Derek Henry, but I might wind up with more Aaron Jones. And again, I think the Packers have in my mind better odds of covering than the Titans. I would expect Derek Henry's efficiency to be a lot better than Aaron Jones's, but still I would go Aaron Jones or Derek Henry over Aaron Jones.


This study found that adding core muscle strengthening exercises to the traditional treatment for patellofemoral pain syndrome, PFPS, resulted in greater improvement in pain levels and quality of life than traditional treatment alone. This article was authored by Luisa Fernanda Prieto-Garcia, Edgar Cortes Reyes, Gilberto Laracotillo, and others.


We met last year some of us in this group and it was just after the American election and we have now have 10 months of the Trump presidency, so we can compare what he's actually done as president with what he hinted he might do when he was a candidate.  I've had experience with them for over 30 years. One of them involved the Korean crisis in late 97-98 and you may remember or not that S&P downgraded Korea at that time by several things after the crisis broke. And it indicated to me because I'd just been spending some time on the Korean economy that these two institutions or I'm talking about S&P in particular did not know what they were talking about. They had no notion of the Korean public and sentiment toward debt repaying as it is pejoratively sometimes said they're run by 40-year-olds supervising 25-year-olds and they run their models which may be inadequate typically are limited by data and they just don't know much about what they're doing. They downgraded the U.S. debt in 2011. We have serious, serious problems in the United States but not paying the U.S. public debt is not one of them and won't be in the foreseeable future. And I think the downgrading of China's debt is trying to correct for their mistakes on the upside in grading mortgage-backed securities too highly in 2006 and 2007. So general lesson, don't pay much attention to their ratings, at least their sovereign ratings. By the way they were not very good on Greece either. It was after the crisis that they downgraded Greece. Anyway that's a side comment on this. I attached zero significance to this downgrade in terms of their understanding of the Chinese economy. It's based probably I don't know the model just on the high debt levels in China by developing country standards without looking at what the debt is as she told us yesterday. It makes a difference actually who holds it and what it is and so forth. Back to Trump. As I said, or I hope I said last time, Trump campaigned on slogans. What I call slogans are sentiments, tweets, and unexpectedly he became president. And then he faced the challenge of translating slogans into policy. And that turns out to be a big, big problem in general. I'll come back to BRI at the end and China has the same problem by the way. So what I want to do is say after 10 months, how is Trump responded to his campaign sentiments. And I guess the first surprise is that he actually took them seriously. And he has made attempts to translate these slogans into policy. And I want to divide my observations into four headings. And I'll give just a few illustrative examples under each heading where he's tried and succeeded in translating his slogans into policy. Where he tried and failed to translate the slogans into policy. Where he actually reversed his position or his administration did with his acquiescence. And fourth issues that are still open even after 10 months in the administration where we don't know. And by the way, none of these issues is closed. All of them continues to be open, but I'm going to classify it anyway. Under the first heading, attempts which were successful, the first, in the first week he said publicly, and no big surprise, he was not going to submit TPP to Congress for enactment. And under the arrangements of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, he needed to do that to get it. No guarantee that it would go through the Congress, but he said he was not going to submit it. So in effect, the U.S. withdrew. And that was no surprise. He said it was a terrible agreement. He used that phrase for actually many agreements. And so that was one early on. With a five-month flag, he also said, although he hasn't done it formally as far as I know, he was going to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. There was much more discussion within the administration over doing that. But anyway, he did it at the end or indicated he would withdraw from the, he was not going to follow the Paris Agreement. And so those are two examples where he said, indicated, expressed sentiments about these issues during the campaign and he followed through successfully. Under the second heading, where he expressed sentiments and followed through unsuccessfully, again mentioned two. One conserves immigrants from Muslim countries. Muslims, it's well understood, are terrorists and he didn't want terrorists into the country. And so he decreed by executive order that seven countries, citizens of seven countries, no matter where they were living, but citizens of seven countries could not enter the United States for 120 days, so it was limited. Within a week, that executive order was suspended by a district court judge. And that was a big shock to Mr. Trump. He discovered that the judges, the federal judges, don't work for him. The order was very badly drafted. They came out, I guess three weeks later, with a much better drafted order and they reduced the number of countries to six. And a different set of judges declared that was invalid also. The argument was, by the way, the merits of the case was not decided by these judges. The judges said, this sounds to me like it's unconstitutional. And therefore I'm suspending the order, which they can do, and the courts will decide later whether it's actually unconstitutional. But we don't want an unconstitutional order to go into effect. So that's the American system. And then a second issue concerned an entirely largely domestic issue. The Affordable Care Act passed under President Obama in 2010. Hugely controversial, especially among Republicans, wide sentiment for repealing it. After the election, but before he became president, he revised his verb from repeal to revise, which itself was interesting. And then he challenged the Congress to revise it. And again, I won't take you through the many agonizing details, but the Congress failed. In particular, the Senate failed. And so President Trump discovered that not only do the American judges don't work for him, the American Congress doesn't work for him. Being president of the United States is a very high status position with very limited authority, actually, under the system of American checks and balances. The issues where he reversed his position first concerned the U.S. alliances. He said in the campaign that NATO was obsolete. He didn't use that term as far as I know with respect to Japan and Korea. But he implied that they were also obsolete. It's worth noting here that this Trump position agrees with the position, as I understand it, of the Chinese government, which is that these military alliances were relics of the Cold War, and they were, to coin and term, obsolete. So Trump actually agreed with the Chinese position on this. But we have a big security conference in Munich, Germany every year. Every March, maybe Doug went to it. I didn't go to it. But Mattis, Defense Secretary, Mattis went to it. And Pence also traveled to Europe. And both of these senior officials said, well, created a love fest with NATO. And then Mattis also later traveled to East Asia, Japan and Korea, and also said these are very fine alliances. And of course, our partners have to pay more, to be sure. But these alliances are very fine. So Trump actually never, as far as I know, repudiated his sentiment of the campaign, but his administration did with his presumed acquiescence. And so that's an issue of reversal, I call it, of his campaign slogans. And a second example directly concerns China. Trump said in the campaign that he was on his first day in office. If elected, he would declare China a currency manipulator. He said that in the campaign. The first day went by. The first week went by. The first month went by. No comment on China's currency manipulation. Then a astute journalist asked the new Secretary of Treasury, what about this China being a currency manipulator? And Secretary Munchkin responded by saying, we have a well-ordered process for making such judgments. Treasury report will be out at the end of April and will decide then. And the report duly came out at the end of April. And China was not declared a currency manipulator correctly in my view on the substance of it. So again, Trump did not actually repudiate his earlier statements, but his administration did. Again, I assume with his acquiescence or maybe even lack of knowledge. I'm not sure. And the issues that are still, my fourth category is the issues that are still open. And again, a major domestic issue with some international implications is tax reform. And that is the current top agenda of the administration with the Congress during the course of the fall. They hope to get a major tax reform and tax reduction by the end of the year. And so that's currently very much in the discussion in Washington and in the American business community, especially. We don't know how that's going to come out. And it does not concern this seminar especially. And I can talk about the likelihoods if you want to. Much more directly applicable here is Trump's trade policy toward China. And I think I may have mentioned last year, I will, I don't remember, but I will mention it again. I'm sure that most of Trump's statements during his campaign with respect to China were well reported in Chinese newspapers and on the TV. What I'm equally sure of is that his even worse statements about Mexico were not reported in China. So Chinese in Trump's view is terribly behaved, but much less worse, badly behaved than Mexico was. That was probably not reported in China, but China's only second in Trump's list of countries to condemn. He has since, by the way, one of the condemnations was on the trade surpluses of those China and Mexico with the United States. He has since added to that list, Canada, Germany, and I was told Korea, although I haven't seen that actually myself, Korea has been added to the list. So China has lots of company. In fact, one of our panelists yesterday said, or maybe it was today, 100 countries have trade surpluses. You said that with the United States. And then we can go into the analytical merits. Trump has just lacks fundamental understanding of both about the system we have and about the accounting that is associated with trade surpluses and deficits. So this is just a huge conceptual mistake that he's engaged in. But apparently I'm told by Doug that it's been on his mind for decades. It was not just a recent one. It goes back some decades. He has, or his administration on his instruction has activated, that's actually not quite the right word, but investigated, three rarely used clauses which give the president some authority under American trade legislation. Back up a minute under the U.S. Constitution, the real policymaker in the United States is Congress. The president only executes the laws. But Congress from time to time delegates authority to the president and under the trade legislation going back 40 years to 1974, the president has certain authorities with respect to trade, which he has had investigated. But what's noteworthy is that he has taken no action so far in these trade issues except to open a revision of NAFTA beyond the TPP rejection. And again we could go into the details about why there's been no action. But the point for us here is we still don't know what the trade policy is going to be. I've been around long enough to see many trade negotiations and we won't know about the NAFTA renegotiation until it's done. The guidelines that presented initially were not bad. In fact, they were drawn from TPP ironically. But our chief negotiator has said a number of quite aggressive things publicly, whether that's for show or whether it's real or whether it will materialize, that remains to be seen. So this issue, remember in the campaign, he said at one point 45% duty on Chinese goods. We've seen nothing like that. But we don't know. It's still too early to tell even 10 months into the administration what his trade policy will be. He has been heard to have said, at least on four occasions, involving very different issues across the area of policy. That's a much more complicated issue than I thought it was. And that's what he's discovering. Slogans are not policy. And a complicating feature is that he has been very, very slow to appoint the officials, and the American president can appoint many officials with Senate confirmation. He's been very slow to appoint the officials who actually frame policy in the United States. Decisions are at the top, but the policy gets framed not by the civil servants, typically by assistant secretaries and undersecretaries and deputy assistant secretaries. And many of those positions are vacant. So he's not getting full information about policy options. So that's just a complicating factor. I will just finish by saying, talking about BRI, because we haven't colluded, but I agree with Doug. I was one of those who was appalled when Obama or his unnamed official objected to AIIB having been involved in the creation of the ADB 50 years ago, I thought it was a very positive initiative. And so it has turned out to be so far. It's still at its early stages. BRI, so that, anyway, that's now in being, BRI was announced by President Xi four years ago in 2013. Yeah, four years ago. And I'm told, I guess I don't read Chinese, but I'm told it's a famous Chinese four character slogan. And I tried at the time to find out what it meant. And I failed. And the Chinese and maybe both of you have been involved in it. I know lots of Chinese academics and think tanks have been involved in filling out what now called BRI one belt one road might actually look like. I know that at least some things that long predated BRI were included in it, although they were started years and years ago. And before the May conference this year, in which there was a very elaborate summit conference, I mean, there was a frenetic activity to find out what it might include. And it's gradually settling down. Statements have been made about financing and soon we'll hear about some of the projects other than the ones that were started years ago. But again, it's, it's complicated for China also, as well as for the United States to translate slogans into policy. It takes a long time and lots and lots of thought. But potentially, I think it's a good idea. And I think the US government should say, we, you know, there are a lot of Americans who are very suspicious that you read the literature of political scientists. Very suspicious. This is a Chinese strategic grab, whatever that means. And I say, let's embrace it and emphasize the positive. These are poor countries to the west of China. They can use some help if China is willing to do the financing. We should applaud it.


The fact that E4M decided to have this event happening in and is actually having a physical event shows a lot of, puts a lot of sign on the fact that the energy is back in the system. I feel the fact that while you have been offline online this year for judgment, the next year should be online offline exercise, because that brings in much more amount of engagement between the jury members and the, and the entries that come in play. The overall this year, I guess, because of most of the work was being done from home and physical engagement was very little. Obviously, most of the entries that we saw have that distinct mark coming through very well. But I guess there's a lot of scope for improvement. At the same time, congratulations to all the winners, the gold silver and the bronze winners. Then they've done a terrific job in a tiresome environment. And when you look at it from that perspective from that lens, the work is just outstanding in nature. So kudos to all of them, and wish you the very best for next year. I think some of the categories like experiential marketing, as well as influencers marketing stood out strongly in a experiential is even more important, because the fact that it was during the pandemic time and there was no in person touch and feel experience marketing wasn't existing action. So it was happening all through digital platforms. So how you make that experiential marketing come alive in a digital platform without a physical presence was the most important element. And I think couple of those entries did that superbly.


Brilliant's Audio presents the unabridged recording of Look at the Harlequins by Vladimir Nabokov, performed by Stefan Rudnitsky. Two Vera. Part one. One. I met the first of my three or four successive wives in somewhat odd circumstances, the development of which resembled the clumsy conspiracy, with nonsensical details and the main plotter who not only knew nothing of its real object but insisted on making inept moves that seemed to preclude the slightest possibility of success. Yet, out of those very mistakes, he unwittingly wove a web in which a set of reciprocal blunders on my part caused me to get involved and fulfill the destiny that was the only aim of the plot. Sometime during the Easter term of my last Cambridge year, 1922, I happened to be consulted as a Russian on certain niceties of makeup in an English version of Gogol's Inspector, which the Glow Worm Group, directed by Ivor Black, a fine amateur actor, intended to stage. He and I had the same tutor at Trinity, and he drove me to distraction with his tedious miming of the old man's mincing ways. A performance he kept up throughout most of our lunch at the pit. The brief business part turned out to be even less pleasant. Ivor Black wanted Gogol's town mayor to wear a dressing gown because wasn't it merely the old rascal's nightmare and didn't Revisor, its Russian title, actually come from the French for dream, rev? I said I thought it a ghastly idea. If there were any rehearsals, they took place without me. In fact it occurs to me now that I do not really know if his project ever saw the footlights. Shortly after that I met Ivor Black a second time, at some party or other, in the course of which he invited me and five other men to spend the summer at a Côte d'Azur villa he had just inherited, he said, from an old aunt. He was very drunk at the moment and seemed surprised when a week or so later on the eve of his departure I reminded him of his exuberant invitation, which it so happened I alone had accepted. We both were unpopular orphans, and should I remarked, banned together. Illness detained me in England for another month and it was only at the beginning of July that I sent Ivor Black a polite postcard advising him that I might arrive in Cannes or Nice some time. All complete. Ready to continue?


We just played with a lot of heart. Never give up. We were down in that second set, 16-8, and almost came back and won it. They've not given up. That's our second five-set victory this year. So I thought we could get it to five. We had a good chance to win. They're a really good serving team. In that second set, they got us in passing poorly for a little bit, and we didn't get any good swing. So they went on to run. That's exactly what happened in that fifth set, where McKayla Thompson got back there and got a couple of not easy points, but got them out of system, and we scored. And that ended up being the margin in the end. I thought everybody played well. I think Piper Connor really came up big the night on the outside in the key times. Kids, a lot of times, were in and out of the game, but every time I seemed to put them back in there, they could make a play. So we are really a team first. And whoever we need that night to step up, they're going to do it.


In Wales, from 1 December 2015, the way we choose to be organ donors will change. What is organ donation? When we die, we might be able to give some of our organs to someone else. A lot of people in Wales are waiting for new organs because their own have stopped working properly. Organs that have been donated could be given to these people. This is called an organ transplant. What is changing and when? From 1 December 2015, the way we choose to be donors in Wales will change. The new system is called a soft opt-out system.  Unless you make a decision not to be a donor, you'll be treated as if you want to be one. This is known as deemed consent. This is different from the current system which relies on people joining the NHS organ donor register or their families making the decision. What are my choices? I want to be an organ donor. You can register a decision to be an organ donor. Do nothing. You have no objection to becoming an organ donor. I don't want to be an organ donor. You can register a decision not to be an organ donor. Why do we need a soft opt-out system for organ donation? There is a big shortage of organs for transplants in Wales and across the UK. One reason for the shortage is only a few people die in a way that means they could become organ donors. This is usually in hospital intensive care units or emergency departments. Nine out of ten people in Wales agree with organ donation. But only three out of ten people have signed the NHS organ donor register. The new system will be clearer for everyone. If family members are approached about organ donation, they will know their loved one could have opted out but chose not to. We believe this could help increase the number of donors in Wales by 25%. Who does the soft opt-out system apply to? The soft opt-out system will apply to people who are over the age of 18 and have lived in Wales for over 12 months and die in Wales and haven't registered a decision on the NHS organ donor register. Are families involved in a soft opt-out system? Yes. If it became possible for you to donate, your family or friends would always be involved. This is why the system is called a soft opt-out. Families need to answer important questions about your medical history and if you normally lived in Wales. If they knew you did not want to be a donor, they would be able to say so. If family members or appointed representatives cannot be contacted, donation would not go ahead. What if I'm already on the NHS organ donor register? If you are already on the register, then you still have the same choices as everyone else. You can decide to stay on the NHS organ donor register. This will be treated as a decision to be a donor opt-in from 1 December 2015. Remove your record from the NHS organ donor register. From 1 December, you will be treated as having no objection to organ donation. Removing your name from the register is not the same as opting out. Want more information? Go to organdonationwales.org or call 0300 123 23 23 facebook.com forward slash organ donation Wales twitter.com forward slash org donation CYM If you need any additional information or support, please contact Wales Council for Deaf People. Voice 01443 485 687 Text 01443 485 686 Email mail at wcdeaf.org.uk


So afterlifes have fascinated humans for as long as humans have been around. You know, that's basically the whole basis of religion is what happens after we die. We've thought about good afterlifes, bad afterlifes, reincarnation, where it just starts over again. And obviously there is this sweet, sweet draw of oblivion where we no longer have to think and no longer have to realize how small we are in the grand scheme of things. Now usually in fiction, even fantasy fiction, which has carte blanche to really talk about this sort of thing, it's more of an afterthought if it's explored at all. You know, it's just kind of, oh yeah, we think this is what happens and it can be interesting for world-building and all, but it's not really thoroughly explored at all. And stories that are straight up about the afterlife are pretty rare, if I'm being honest. And it's even more rare if you subtract all the stories that are about like ghosts or people in some sort of purgatory who are trying to pass on to the real afterlife. Like, you subtract those, there really aren't that many that just focus on the afterlife, what it's like for people after they die. And Guards of the Shadowlands is one of those rare exceptions. This is the introduction song. It's not very good, but it's not too long. Specifically this series is about going into a bad afterlife, going into hell, and trying to rescue a loved one who has trapped there. Kind of similar to the story of Orpheus from Greek mythology. If you've never read it or anything about that.  So he went down to the underworld and convinced Hades to let his wife back up. But the one rule was that he couldn't look back while he was climbing back out of the underworld and that the last second he looked back and saw his wife and then she disappeared and he never got it back and it's like sad and stuff, I guess. At first that's what Guards of the Shadowlands is about, but it does change quite a bit later. And that's what really makes the story work, though. Is that, yes, there is action, there is danger, there is adventure, there is like saving parts of the world, but what makes it work is the relationship between the main character, Leela, and her friend Nadia, who she goes to hell to save. Like, if it weren't for that one specific thing, I don't think I would have liked the series very much, but that is done extremely well and it forms a foundation for everything else. Like, so often when people are trying to write stories, especially like big epic ones, they either forget about or neglect the human element of it, which is, you know, it's the foundation. That's what makes us care about any of this. And that's also why I'm frustrated by so many stories being about saving the world or so many stories being about just saving a huge area or something because it forgets about the human element and smaller scale stories really can't forget about that, so they're often times better.  Like, I won't go into extreme detail, but it is awful for a variety of reasons. Like, her mother abandoned her when she was about four years old and so she's just been in foster care this whole time. She has, like, no family, no real close friends. She had just gotten out of juvenile hall for crimes which were kind of justified but in the eyes of the law that doesn't really matter, unfortunately. And I mean, to give you an idea of just how she does not have any connection to her family and she has no friends, near the beginning she mentions that she thinks she's Puerto Rican but she doesn't actually know for sure and she doesn't have anyone who can tell her. Like, I don't know why, that's such a small detail, but it really just broke my heart. I felt bad for this girl. But she meets Nadia pretty early on and they become friends. Like, she becomes her connection to the wider world and she realizes, okay, life is not super awful. And I should note that at this stage, Lila already knows about the Dark City which is the afterlife where people who commit suicide go because she attempted suicide a while before the story began and she could see some visions of it and obviously she survived but she continues seeing visions of it in the present day. So that's her motivation to not kill herself. She realizes, well, there's nothing great after this life so I may as well make the best of it. However, pretty early on in the story, Nadia kills herself and Lila as well as all of the other people around her are heartbroken by this because, you know, their friend killed herself but Lila especially is heartbroken because she knows where Nadia is and she knows it's terrible there. And through a series of events which aren't that complicated but it's not that interesting either, Lila winds up in the Dark City herself and she decides, you know what, as long as I'm here I'm going to rescue my friend and that's where the bulk of the story takes place. I'll tell you right now, this is a fantastic setup. It's great. It's awesome. It's insert other positive adjectives here because it's very focused.  The Dark City is awful. Like, it's full of all these souls of people who committed suicide and so they're just depressed or angry and just wandering around and in addition there are demons everywhere, killing people, both the souls that were there and anyone else who might wander in like Lila. But it's really just about her trying to rescue her friend and all these are obstacles in her way. We have a very focused goal that we want the main character to succeed at and the villains are getting in the way of that. Like, there are too many stories that just get this backwards where the hero is just kind of chilling and then the villains decide to do something evil. Like, they want to take over the world or they want to destroy the world or something and the heroes just decide, okay, I'm going to stop them from doing that. And while this isn't inherently bad, if you're not careful, having a reactive protagonist can make them a boring protagonist and that's not a problem here. It's great. Like, when Lila is fighting through Mazakin, the demons here are called Mazakin, we'll get more into them in a minute, or she's joining up with the guards that patrol this area, which is where the name of the series comes from, Guards of the Shadowlands. We know that that's just a side story or maybe side story is not the right word, but it's more of a distraction for her because she is going after her friend. That's what she's here for and she never loses sight of that even when other maybe more important story elements are happening. And Lila is really a great character to follow. You know, she has some horrible trauma in her past and that affects her, but she's not defined by it. Likewise, she starts a romance pretty early on in the story with one of the guards. His name is Malachi. It sounds like a spoiler, but it's really not. It's just, it's not. It's pretty obvious where that's going from the beginning. And again, that informs her character, but she's not defined by it and she changes over time, too.  You know, she's not someone who's been training for decades or millennia in some cases, like the guards have been doing. She's just someone who has been in scrapes in her life and she knows her own limitations. Like, pretty early on, like, the first thing that happens in the story is she does attack this dude, but rather than just beating him up, which would be possible for her, she intimidates him by pretending she's friends with gang members and that's how she gets him to leave both her and Nadia alone. That's, like, the first thing that happens in the story. And so we realize, okay, she knows her own limitations and she's intelligent and that informs her throughout the rest of the series as well. And that works really well. And her romance with Malachi is... fine. You know, it's not bad, but it is a bit superfluous.  It's just... it's superfluous. You know, it didn't really need to be there. And Malachi himself is fine as a love interest. You know, he's not abusive or anything like that, which honestly puts him above, like, 80% of love interests, but it's not even getting into that.  He's a part of Gold, he really does. But there's just not a whole lot to him beyond his backstory, which is pretty good, I think. And a lot of the other characters there range from being fine to being good. You know, they have their own backstories about how they wound up committing suicide and how they wound up in the dark city. They have their own personalities. They have their own skills, their own strengths. Like, it works. It works pretty well. And after, you know, fighting through hordes of Mazakin and going through this whole terrible dark city, which is, like, really a horrible place to be and I wouldn't want to spend eternity there, I realized, near the end, that this whole thing is just a metaphor for helping loved ones with mental problems.  And, yeah, that is true. Like, I don't know how many of you have had loved ones with very bad problems, whether they have like a drug problem or depression or whatever. Like, you can be there to support them and you can be there to help them and that is invaluable for them but at the end of the day, they have to fix themselves. And, I mean, having known people who have wound up dying from this sort of thing, it got me. I don't know if it would be the same with other people, especially if you haven't been in that situation, but when I realized that, it made me realize that this whole book is a lot smarter than it seemed at first where it was just a simple adventure story and it just... it hit home, you know? And that's all great, but that's also all only the first book. My problems, up with the first book and not even getting into my problems with the series as a whole, would be, I wish we got some more focus on Nadia's depression. Like, they really gloss over it, you know? They talk about how she just felt like she was an empty, fake person and there was nothing to her. And, like, okay, I get that, but that's, like, the start of understanding her and her pain and her dilemma. We don't really get much beyond that, unfortunately, which is very... Well, I already said it's unfortunate. And the other major issue I have here is that the rules of this world are strange sometimes. Like, there are multiple different afterlifes. The Dark City is where you go after you commit suicide and we only really see four afterlifes and only two of them are explored in any detail. We'll get to the second one in the spoiler section, I think. But the Dark City, people go there because they committed suicide because they reached, like, the point of despair where they just saw no point in existing anymore. And there's a character who's mentioned in the first book, doesn't actually show up until the third book, named Takashi. And when we learn his backstory, it turns out he was a samurai a couple hundred years ago who was betrayed by his liege lord and he was forced to commit sepaku.   Like, so the guy who killed Takashi was the one who landed the final blow, number one. And number two, he was forced to commit sepaku. He didn't do this of his own free will, so I don't think that counts as suicide. You know, he was executed, essentially. Like, in fact, sepaku was a form of execution that was used in feudal Japan and it wasn't outlawed until the Meiji era, which was, like, I don't know, 1880, I think, is around the time it was outlawed. But, like, this was a thing. People weren't doing it of their own free will all the time. So, I don't think that counts as suicide. Which makes me wonder, like, are the people from Jonestown here? Because a lot of them did not drink the poisoned Kool-Aid. They were forced at gunpoint to drink the poison Kool-Aid. So, like, again, that doesn't really count as suicide. I don't think. It's an odd decision. An odd choice. But, you know, there's a couple other small issues like that with the world, but I don't know, that's, like, the biggest one. And it really, really bothered me. And the worst problem with this series that I have, like, the biggest one by a huge margin, is it feels like this was intended to be one book because the story really is wrapped up by the end of book one. And then they just decide to go in a very different direction for books two and three. So it feels like it was very stretched out. And I don't know if this was the author's intention or if, like, the publisher encouraged her to do it or what, but whatever the case is, it really should have just been one book. Like, that first book where it's just about saving one person that Lila loves is great. But once we get into the second and third ones, and it becomes more about just saving the world as a whole, it's a lot less great. Or, at least until the third book where it changes up a little bit again, but that's spoiler section. So I just, I don't know, by the end of it, I was really, really just begging for it to be over.  Please just get to the end. Like, so overall, while I don't hate the second and third books, the first one is the best. Like, the verdict here is that this is a great short adventure followed by a much less great, much longer adventure. And I don't know, if the premise of the first book sounds interesting to you, I think you should check that out. But if you really don't care beyond that, and by the time you get to the end of that, you're like, okay, I'm done with the story. I don't need to know what happens next. Then, yeah, you can just stop there. What happens next is not really important. Just pretend, yep, happily ever after. And that's about all. So I will get into the spoiler section now. If you don't want to see any of that, then goodbye. Up yours, woke moralists. We'll see who cancels who. All right. At the end of the first book, Leela reaches Nadia and they are able to help her out.  And is also kind of God, but kind of not. I mean, this series definitely draws inspiration from Christian mythology, but if you can tell by the multiple different afterlifes, it doesn't follow it all that closely. So just, I don't know if that's worth mentioning, but it's there. But anyways, they find Nadia, they bring her to the judge, and basically, the judge says, okay, we will let her leave this terrible dark city after life, and she can move on to the countryside, which is, I don't know, we don't learn that much about it, but it is like the nice afterlife. And it's also, at this point, we realize that people who commit suicide aren't sent to the dark city as punishment, they're sent there so that they can have a way to work through their problems and get it together so that they can actually enjoy the afterlife and be worthy of being in heaven. And I should note that the dark city does a terrible job of that, but that was an interesting twist for me. And from this point forward, Nadia is no longer in the story. Like, Leela succeeded, you know, she got her friend out of that terrible place, and she knows that she's somewhere better, so she finds her own closure with that, and she knows she'll see her again one day, but there is nothing else to do there. So instead, they go, in the second book, they go back to Earth, Leela, and Malachi, and a couple other guards, and they have to fight the Mazikin because Mazikin are coming up into the world and attacking people. And I should say right now that the villains of this story are terrible. I barely remember anything about them. They have very little personality. They feel very unthreatening. There's nothing interesting about them. They're just, they're there, you know? And even though the Mazikin can, like, possess people and take over their bodies, they don't do anything super interesting with that. And at least until the third book, kind of, it's just, once they possess you, your soul goes to the Mazikin realm where you get tortured for all eternity. And now they're coming up and they're making trouble on Earth, so Leela and the other guards have to fight them. Which is fine, I guess, but then there's a weird amount of focus on high school drama and, like, there's an obligatory love triangle, which at least it doesn't last too long. It does get resolved relatively quickly and then Leela and Malachi are just an item for the rest of the story. And Leela's also the captain of all the guards up there for some reason, which is really dumb because she's been a guard for a couple of weeks and the others have been doing this for decades, if not centuries, but okay. As much as I'm complaining about this, I don't think it's terrible. Like, I mean, I've read worse stories in this vein, like, you know, that have a large focus on high school drama and stuff. I didn't actively hate any of the characters involved, at the very least, so it could be worse. But anyways, by the end, Malachi gets possessed by a Mazikin, which means that the demon has taken over his body and is going to make trouble on Earth while his soul goes to their realm and gets tortured for all eternity. So Leela decides at the end of the book, you know what? I'm going to go there and I'm going to rescue him. And at the beginning of the third book, she goes up to the judge and she's like, hey, send me to the Mazikin realm so that I can rescue Malachi. And the judge basically says, okay, I will send you there, but you have to do something for me.  You know, she's like an aunt or a honeybee or something. Like, without her, they can't make any more. And number two, she needs to destroy the portal that the Mazikin use to leave their realm. And she's like, okay, I can do those two things and then rescue Malachi. That sounds great.  And then, after they've saved their friend, they come back to Earth and they have to fight these demonic entities that are appearing and attacking people. And then after a while of that, a different loved one gets taken away by the demonic entities and taken to a different afterlife and then they have to go there and rescue them again. This is the plot of Bleach. Now, I like Bleach but the storyline is probably the weakest part of the whole manga. You know, I mostly read it for the artwork, the characters, and the action, all of which are pretty good most of the time, but like the story gets repetitive. If you've never read it, it follows that exact pattern I just mentioned. Like there's a really long story arc where they rescue someone and it's great and then there's a different really long story arc where they rescue somebody else and at that point it gets repetitive. Like, bad? If you look at it as its own thing but it is annoying that it's just the same thing again and that is what turned a lot of people off of Bleach back in the day. And here, yeah, it's the same issue. Like, okay, we're more focused you know, like Lila's going there to save her loved one and then there's some other stuff but she doesn't care about that as much. That's just like her ticket to coming back to Earth afterwards because the judge won't let her back otherwise. And, I don't know, it's a very odd revelation for me when I realized that. Like, I was not expecting... I don't know if it's a rip-off per se but I wasn't expecting to come across that again. But after the not very interesting stuff that happens in the second book, the third one does get off to a pretty strong start. Like, it's about them going to rescue Malachi and then when they find him they go after the Mazakin Queen and they try to destroy the portal. And I loved exploring the Mazakin realm. Like, it's quite a bit different than I would have expected because all of the humans that they possess over the millennia have been down here. So there's millions of them and they're all enslaved by the Mazakin. And there's also... it's like a giant city just like the Dark City, but this one has a big dome over it so they can't escape. And, like, whenever the sun comes out it gets focused through the dome and it becomes unbearably hot and if you stay outside too long during the daytime it'll probably kill you. And because when Mazakin possess people they also take all of their knowledge and memories they are able to build technology, you know, like factories and cars and stuff. So they're more advanced than you might expect and they also, you know, have all these slaves that they can use to do the labor with, you know. The point is, this world is different than I anticipated and it was kind of neat. I liked exploring it. So that was good. The thing is they kill the Mazakin Queen halfway through the book and at that stage I was like, well where exactly is the story going from here? Well, it turns out a new villain appears. Like, yeah, one of the humans who they teamed up with to try and kill the Mazakin Queen and overthrow the Mazakin order, let's say, he decides he doesn't want to escape. He doesn't want to destroy the portal and destroy the dome, which would release all the souls and allow him to escape. He wants to rule over it himself now for all eternity. And then I was like, okay, I guess this is kind of dumb, but I guess the rest of the story will just be about fighting him.  And then like the last, that's pretty short though, the last like 30% of the book they go back to Earth again and Lila has to fight the last couple remaining Mazakin that they left behind at the end of book two and like that's the last chunk of the story.  It's just, it's not smart. I didn't like it. So like I said, by the end of this I was really just begging for it to be over and yeah, I don't have a whole lot else to say beyond that. It was a pretty good series at the start but then it really got stretched out especially the third book. It genuinely feels like the author didn't know what she wanted it to be about because there's like three different climaxes and each one of them feels like it should be the end of the story but it's not. So it's just, it's not super well put together and I maintain that it should have just been the one book at the beginning and you could maybe have made it longer and spent more time like really fleshing out all the parts of this world and all the parts of the characters, like especially Nadia but I just, I don't know. If any of that still sounds neat to you then I guess you could read the whole series. If not, then just read the first book like I said. The second and third ones aren't awful. You know, I'm making it sound like I think they're awful but that's just because I'm focusing on the problems. You know, I still think that the characters are decent. I still think Lila is good to follow. I still think some of the action is fun and I still think that at least for the beginning part of the last book where they're just focused on saving Malachi, it is again a very focused story but it has a lot of problems and so I don't know what dramatic title I'm gonna give to this one but it it made me feel a lot of things. It's better than a lot of books I've read here. Anyways, see you later. Goodbye. And thanks to everyone who watched. If you want your name on here, consider donating. If you don't feel like doing that, then you know, just rate the video, comment, subscribe, share it around, annoy all your friends with the spam. Goodbye.


For the 24th time in team history, the BSU Minnesota Cruikshen football teams met Saturday for the Highway 2 rivalry. The Beavers held a remarkable 21-2 mark heading into Saturday's matchup against the Golden Eagles. And the Beavers' special teams had a field day on Saturday. Gunnar Olszewski returned seven punts for a school record 194 yards. 72 of them coming on this play for a touchdown right here. But Joann Richard wasn't going to be showing up opening kickoff of the second half. His only kick return of the game, and he isn't even touched. He houses it from 95 yards, 206 all-purpose yards, and three touchdowns in the game for him. The Beavers set a school record for total touchdowns in the game with 11. Jordan Hine broke a couple of other records in the process. In the third quarter, Hine hit Blake Holder in the flat. And Holder broke loose, does the rest, going 82 yards for the score. That's Hine 58th career TV pass, most in school history. And then later in the third, this play might look familiar. This time it's Dexter Taylor Jr. going 45 yards for the score. That's Hine's 75th career total touchdown, another BSU record. As the Beavers roll over Minnesota Crookston on Saturday, 76 to 13. Gunnar Olszewski, MSIC special teams player of the week. It's a great way to send out the seniors.  For everything, it's just, you know, close games. Everything that's occurred for the university and with the Beavers football program. So that just means a lot for me to get that for the seniors. It's remarkable. I mean, Gunnar Olszewski really set the stage. He was remarkable on his punt returns and everything else.  Special teams were, I mean, we were awesome on special teams today. So I thought we were disciplined for the most part, which was huge after last week. So the points just kind of kept coming and they were just blitzing all the time. We hit some quick screen passes and got off the gate and hit some big plays. So yeah, I looked down and it was like 7-0 for the longest time. And I looked back up, it was 42-0. I was like, wow, that happened fast. And yesterday the Beavers got some good news. They'll be headed to the Mineral Water Bowl in Excelsior Springs, Missouri for the second time in team history. BSU will take on Washburn University out of the Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association. The Beavers' only other appearance in the game was a 35-27 loss in 2006 to Pittsburgh State. The game will be Saturday, December 3rd at noon.


Hello, yes. Hi, my name is Neil Yeo. I'm the CEO and founder of 1.5. I myself, I'm based out of New York, but originally from Australia. I was a robotics engineer from undergrad and I totally understand how important it is to have engineers solving the most critical challenges. Throughout my career, I ended up like finding my way to climate change after working in the oil and gas industry and seeing how engineers can also contribute to a lot of bad. So I'm just absolutely wonderfully inspired by engineers here that are trying to do something more impactful in this world. So as 1.5, we tried to democratize access to experts. We work with climate technology early stage startups in the services and also finance sectors. So if you ever looking for experts where the entrepreneurs and residents trying to help commercialize the next generation of impactful startups and solutions for the Changemaker Award, it is nominated by you and selected by you. This award highlights the achievements and recognizes the potential for engineers, emerging leaders, and their organizations. First of all, thank you for everyone that voted and the foreshortlisted awardees. Like all your work is critical as engineers. I was just saying that you all deserve this award really, really much a lot more than anyone else here. And so with that, this year's Changemaker Award is, we had a bit of a foreshadowing, Kiribati, co-founded by Rishabh Narawati and Aman Saria. The Kiribati team is leveraging technology to change the way mental health is addressed in India and Kiribati provides exposure therapy via virtual reality to those affected by mental health disorders under the supervision of mental health professionals. So without further ado, we shall come on over to you. Well, a big thank you to our team and everyone that saw potential in our idea of advancing mental health treatment using immersive technologies. Thank you to ASME and E4C and a special thank you to the Resolution Project and our Resolution Mentors for pushing us towards this opportunity. We are honored to be held alongside such wonderful nominees. Everyone here is a Changemaker, not just the award winners, but also the organizers, speakers and the audience. I believe we have all won today because we are all here to celebrate something amazing. Yeah, we've had a long journey, but there is still a long way to go. We want to make sure that our project is based in extensive research and ethics. So it's really important for us to understand the sensitivity and then the nuances of what we're dealing with. We're at the starting point of our career, but we're excited to have more impact as we move forward. We hope together with all the teams we can serve as an inspiration for others to convert their impactful ideas into reality. And once again, we're really grateful for the award. Thank you so much.