my goodness what's up money geeks mr v here welcome to another video guys so in this one we are going to talk about nvidia so for those of you guys don't know what this company does um nvidia is a company that produces um graphic cards and chips and um a lot of computing power for you know individual gaming computers as well as for enterprise solutions so you would see them on mobile computing automotive market and pretty much nvidia is everywhere so all the chip that you have for gaming and for powering your computer they have their hand on it and i think they are one of the leading cheap manufacturers as far as the computing space goes so this company recently announced a four for one split of their common stock and so uh do some background here nvidia is a company that i have been crying that i didn't own this uh company over the years so i think this four for one split is finally going to give me an opportunity to get into this stock um so that's what i want us to talk into this video but before we get started guys feel new to the channel we talk about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth so that's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell so you don't miss out on new content so um last week nvidia put out their information that they were gonna do a four for one split as you can see here um everywhere they had the four for one split from nvidia so it was something that um it was making the rounds last week on like everywhere online um so i said looking at it it's like okay this is interesting to me because this is a stock i've always been jealous that i didn't have it in my portfolio so this might finally be an opportunity for me to jump into the stock so uh right now this is where where nvidia is so we take a day so nvidia closed the day today when i was doing this video at about 650 bucks um so you can see it went to a high of about 654 655 before pulling back and sitting at about 650 so again this is a four for one split what does that mean so if you buy this stock let's go look at the details again so that people can actually understand so uh a four for one split is that if you own one share of nvidia uh before i think it's june 21st let's make sure we have that information in here so um fucking take a step back the shareholder meeting to approve this split is going to come up on june 3rd so that is um june 3rd coming up here um so definitely keep an eye on this date and then um each shareholder of nvidia as of june 21st so you have to be a shareholder of the stock as of june 21st uh we'll receive stock dividends of three additional common share of every share health so if you hold one share of nvidia um by the end of june 21st you're gonna you're gonna get come up with four shares um after that so that's a four for one split so and then um the shares are to be distributed after the close of trading on july 19 so just a key date and then um the newly split shares will begin um on trading on july 20 so four key dates again that i want to give you guys recap here shareholders voting to approve the split uh june 3rd um you have to be a shareholder of nvidia by june 21st on or before june 21st to qualify for the the the split and then once that split goes through um june 20 july 19 that's when the shares are going to be distributed after close of the market so july 19 when market closes they distribute the shares and then july 20th that's when it's going to start trading so if you own one share of nvidia um by july 20 um july 20th you're gonna see it's going to go to four shares um but it's going to be at a adjusted rate so again let's say for instance nvidia is trading right now at 400 uh 650 dollars excuse me if you divide that by four you're looking at about 162 dollars a share so you're going to have four shares at 162 dollars so uh net for anybody that's holding the stock you should be even it's not going to you're just going to have more shares um which would give you an opportunity to grow and make even more profit and so the whole thing here is that when if they can reduce the price of the uh the stocks to that you know to 162 it would bring in more investors so you can see here so the declare four for one split again the reason they're doing it is because they want to bring in uh more investors again so that's something that they want to do apple did that tesla did that and the reason the same reason they gave was that their the whole idea is to bring in even more investors um into the stock so uh i think when i read um the stock right now after this split it would have about four billion uh common shares which is a lot uh but nvidia has just been on fire let's take a look here again guys let's go uh year to date year to date the stock is up 24 percent uh take a look at five years five years the stock is up 1300 percent guys this is insane that's why i'm crying like i don't know why i don't look at this back in 2017 nvidia was sitting at 95 dollars and i'm sitting saying man how why did that not buy the stock but again after the split if it's down to that 160 um if it if it's like apple or tesla after the split you see some sort of a pullback so i'm going to be looking if it pulls back um and get to about 150 after the split i'm definitely going to buy so i'm not buying before the split um if you are in the stock then you're set but if you're not for me i'm going to wait um and trade it after the split again like i said if we follow the same thing that happened to apple and to tesla after the split the stock took a beating tesla split came uh i think it was about 400 and then the stock pulled back all the way down to like 350 or 340 and then apple went down to like uh 106 or 107 so there's a tremendous amount of opportunity there but with the momentum that nvidia has been having who knows what's going to happen but that's my strategy it might be different from yours so definitely make sure that you do your research on that um so just a quick recap again here guys um nvidia which is um a cheap manufacturer they produce you know kind of graphic and chips for gaming and professional market and so they actually announced a fall for one split as you can see here uh yahoo had the news routers had the news and it was all over the internet they're doing a fall for one split and right now currently trading at 650 dollars uh fall for one split will put you at about 162 dollars a share which is my i think again for nvidia with how far the stock has grown over the last 10 years i think would be a good place um under 160 on at least 150 to me would be a good entry point and then uh key dates that i want you to remember here about this split just so you know um and this again this is very important so june 3rd they're going to announce um or that the shareholders have approved this if they disapprove then it's not going to go through so june 3rd would be the meeting for the company shareholders to vote um to approve the split and then june 21st um if you own the stock by june 21st and then you'll get these three um additional shares during this split and then um july 19th is when um they're gonna you know distribute the the extra shares and then july 20th that's when the extra shares are gonna start trading again just a quick uh recap here so just that you understand exactly what's going on here so um that's what i wanted to cover in this video guys again let me know in the comment section what you think about this do you currently own nvidia if you do i'm so jealous um but if not i'm looking my strategy here is to wait and try to get in after the split because i'm anticipating that after the split there might be a little a little pullback then i can buy it and then ride the wave uh but again guys that's my strategy who knows how that's gonna turn around but again if after the split i'm gonna dollar cost average myself into the stock i'm gonna buy maybe a few and then wait to see if it pulls down then i average down then if it starts to go up i might just wait and see until i wait for that pullback so again let me know what you guys think about uh nvidia in the comment section if you're new to the channel would you go about how to earn money how to save money how to invest and build wealth so that's something that interests you go ahead and hit that subscribe button and the notification bell so you don't miss out on your content also if you are looking to get started with investing guys we will have the promotion where if you sign up and deposit a hundred dollars you get some free stocks links in the description below in us always do your due diligence don't be a greedy savage and stay motivated


For myself and the team here at Blackstar, the most exciting new feature on these pedals is Cabrig. Cabrig is our next generation DSP speaker simulator that recreates a sound and a feel of a miced up guitar cab in incredible detail. We've developed this from the ground up. Whether you're using this live, recording, practice, or even as an amp replacement at the end of your pedalboard, Cabrig offers you class leading speaker simulation and full flexibility and can solve some of the issues that we as musicians can run into when we're using things like IRs. With the accompanying software, Architect, you can save three patches of Cabrig onto the pedal and you can access them via the three-way mini toggle switch in the middle of the pedal. On the side of the pedal, there's a stereo quarter-inch jack Cabrig output. This can be used for going into a recording interface or can even drive some headphones. On the rear of the pedal, there's an XLR mono output. This is great for running into a mixing desk or even an active speaker. For deep editing of Cabrig patches, connect the USB up to your PC or Mac and load up the free architect software. Both dual pedals have the same feature set. They'll have different voicing and more gain on the dual distortion. So I'm currently on the crunch channel of the Departament 10 dual drive. I've got the USB connected to this Mac and that's how I'm recording all of the audio for this video. This XLR is connected to the speaker behind me and that's how I'm monitoring in a room with zero latency. So now I'll take you through some of the features of the Cabrig and what kind of sounds you can get and all the different features. So maybe let's start out on a 4x12 Classic UK. So this should be fairly big open sound. That's a really good starting point. So let's explore some of the other cabs we've got available. I'll go all the way down to a 1x12 vintage USA. So just in changing that cab, there's a big difference in sound to really usable things. 4x12 more open, more muted in the top end, more smooth. The 1x12 USA vintage was like a bit more spiky sounding, really good for that kind of indie stuff, kind of old school stuff. So yeah, two really good choices there. So just pick another one to go to somewhere in the middle of a 2x12 USA combo. So again, another great sound kind of in between those two, bit more open in the top end, but still not tons of bottom end there. So I think that'll be good for using some delays on some reverbs and stuff is not going to get too muddy. So we'll stick with that 2x12 combo at the moment. The next thing to do is to explore the microphone section. We're currently on a 4x14 condenser. So this should be fairly open sounding, a lot of top end, a lot of bottom end. Let's move over to sounding a bit warmer. So one to one ribbon maybe. Very smooth in a top end, tons of low end there, but just very smooth across the board. So I like that a lot. Maybe let's try a 57 dynamic. Instantly a completely different sound, still using the same cab, but just changing that microphone. It's a little bit spiky in the top end there. Very like characteristic of that kind of 57 dynamic sound. Let's move that off axis and maybe get rid of some of that top end stuff and to smooth it out a little bit more. So a 2x12 combo, mic'd up with a 57. That's a fairly classic sound and I think we've nailed it there. So now I've got that basic sound I'm happy with. I'll show you the room. I've had that muted so far, so I'll just unmute that. This should give you a stereo mic'd up room sound. So blending that in alongside the dry. Just dial that back a little bit. So compared to that dry sound that I had before without the room blended in, it's given a lot of life to the sound. Let's just quickly do an AB between no room and room in. Mute that and put it back in. So that gives a lot of life to the sound. This isn't reverb per se. This is more like emulating the sound of a mic'd up cab in a room with a couple of mics a few feet back. So what you would do in a recording studio is you have full control over the wet versus the dry. So I can blend in that room sound as much as I want. So as these pedals are more like preamps, there's no power amp involved. One thing we need to do is to complete the chain. So preamp, power amp, speaker, microphone. We've added the power amp section in here to do that. So currently I'm on a 6L6 emulation of a power amp. We have EL34 and EL84 as well. We have other power amp features like resonance, presence, and drive. So let me go through a few of those now. Let's start on the 6L6. Move over to EL34. So that's compared to the 6L6, that's a much more kind of woody sound, kind of a classic British kind of thing. Take the room down a little bit so you can hear those differences a bit better. ["Move Over To The EL84"] Moving over to the EL84. So that's much more of a top boosted kind of thing, a bit more of the top end, a little bit thinner in the bottom. Really good for cutting through a mix, really good for adding other effects onto it as well. Let's move on to the resonance and presence. The resonance and presence have five settings. So let's go through the resonance first. At five, this is max resonant. Let's go to the minimum. So that's tamed a lot of the bottom end there. So for cutting through a mix, for double tracking, stuff like that, this is great. Go for somewhere in the middle. So a good balance between the bottom end being there but not too present. Moving on to the presence, this is all the way up. So really opened up that top end there. I'll move over to the first setting on the presence.  You can get a lot of that kind of top end fizz stuff. So to bring that in is a nice little trick. So moving on to the power amp drive. This will react with the volume on your pedal. So the harder you drive the volume, the more that this will take effect. I've just turned the power amp drive all the way up to max so we can hear the difference between minimax. So that's emulating driving a power amp a little bit more into that cap. So it kind of fills out the sound a bit, a little bit of saturation in there. Really nice to kind of thicken up that sound. Moving on to the EQ, which is in a master section. I've had this bypass for now. Let's engage this to see what we can get. So there's a low cut, a high cut, a low frequency, low mids, high mids and high frequency. What we've done is we've really narrowed down the frequencies that you really need when you're EQing yourself. The low cut and the high cut is a really important thing. You'll find a lot of producers do this to sit the guitar in a mix, not have too much low end stuff, not have too much high end stuff. So bringing this in kind of tail us a low end and I'll show you a bit of that now. Let's take it all the way off. That coupled with the low control can be really powerful. So let's boost this up a little bit and have a little bit more of the low cut. That should give us a nice little bump in the bottom end. So boosting that low, but also taking some of the low cut up, that gives a nice little bump in the bottom end and that fills out the sound a lot and doesn't give us loads of sub frequencies that we just don't want. The low mids and the high mids are really tuned to guitar specific EQ. So this is very different to if you just grabbed a normal parametric EQ and found the low mid and turned it up. So this is really tuned to work with a recorded guitar sound. Let's try those out. High mids, this is gonna add that bite back in. Let's keep that around zero. Let's boost it high and see what that does. The high end of a guitar signal is always really tricky to get the nice top end frequencies without sounding too harsh. So we spent a lot of time tuning this frequency and tuning this band. I find that using the presence control in the power amp alongside the master EQ high control is a nice balance between a lot of power amp presence coming through and boosting that high. So if I've boosted this, maybe I'm going for a lower presence. If I turn this presence up, maybe I need to drag this down a little bit. So here I've got the dual dist and I'll go through a couple of high gain tones on this pedal. That's the crunch channel. Let's move on to the OD. Another great feature in Cab Rig is the randomize function. This randomizes the cab choice and microphone choice only. So if you just don't know which one to pick, just tap that and it will give you another setup. I hope that gives you an idea of what Cab Rig is capable of and the tones that you can get from it. I've been Alex from Blackstar. See you next time.


What is the point of lighting this lamp? What is the science behind it? Because this is a culture, this is a culture where we did not do anything, which is not scientific, which is not naturally for the enhancement of the human being to reach towards their ultimate well-being or liberation. So in this process, this light… lighting of the lamp is significant because in human experience, our visual experience is such, it's light which makes us see. So in this context, we have always seen that in our experience of these five senses, light plays a significant role in our perception of the world around us. If there is no light, there is no experience of anything around us. So in this context, light is important, but the significance of this day is not just about light, it is not just about lighting a lamp, it is the beginning of what we refer to as the Kaivalya Pada. It is in this context that we have made this Karthik Masam very, very significant because this is the shift from Sadhana Pada to Kaivalya Pada. What this means, I will go into it. Over fifteen thousand years ago, a yogi appeared in the upper regions of Himalayas. I see here there's an attempt to create the Himalayan atmosphere. Nobody knew where he came from, what his antecedents were. His name, his identity was not known. Not knowing who he is, but drawn to the power of his being, people assembled. Because he never introduced himself, not told his name. People started referring to him as Adiyogi, the first yogi. A huge gathering like this happened, but he did nothing. He said nothing, he did nothing. He simply sat still. If nobody says anything here on this stage or do anything on this stage, within ten minutes half the people at the rear part of the thing will slowly disappear. If we don't do anything for three hours, most of them will disappear. If we don't do anything for three days, only a few hardcore ones will hang on, the rest of them will be gone. The same happened to him. Thousands of people gathered initially. He said nothing, did nothing, simply sat still. Days, weeks, months passed, he simply sat still. People could not make out whether he's really alive or not. The only sign of aliveness was tears of ecstasy were dribbling down his cheeks, otherwise he did not even seem to be breathing. They were expecting a miracle. Their idea of a miracle is something dramatic to happen.  That is one thing they could not notice, just seven people hung on. And those seven people today are celebrated in this culture as the Saptarishis, these seven beings, the Saptarishis pursued him. And they're longing, they're wanting to know, they're wanting to transcend their own limitations, made Adiyogi. Who they started referring to as Shiva, because the word Shiva literally means Shiva means that which is not. That which is, is material. That which is, is creation. That which is not is the basis of creation. So they refer to him as Shiva, but he sat there as a yogi with them. And seeing their interest, when the sun shifted from Uttarayana to Dakshinayana, in the month of June, the first full moon after Dakshinayana, he turned south because the sun turned south, he turned south and started expanding the science of knowing the mechanics of what a human being is and what is his relationship with the rest of the universe and how we can make this into one. So this face of the ear, which is Dakshinayana, is referred to as the Sadana Pada. The Karthikmasam is significant because now it is moving into what is called as Khyvalya Pada. That means this was all the time of ploughing, seeding and cultivating. Now, the time for harvest, the inner harvest of whatever sadhana you have done to take the cream of that sadhana, to make it available to yourself. You have heard many stories about this with everybody is definitely aware of how Pithamahabhishma waited on the bed of Arus not to die in the Sadana Pada but he wants to die or leave his body in the Khyvalya Pada because that is the time you can harvest the fruits of life. The inner nature can be harvested very easily in the Khyvalya Pada. Right now, this is the transition from sadhana to Khyvalya and it is because of that in this month, lighting of lamp is indicative of enlightenment, awareness, consciousness and ultimate liberation. All this is symbolized with the lamps that we light. Now, this is not just about lighting one lamp, usually the tradition said that as the Karthikmasam comes, you must double the lamps that we light because one thing is the day has become shorter, so you need little more light to do your daily activity. Another thing is to indicate that you are multiplying the light in your life. We want 125 crore lamps in this country for every one of them, at least one for every one. We need seven hundred crores of lamps for every human being on this planet. You cannot do all that by yourself, you must do this much. One for yourself, one for somebody who is dear to you and one for somebody whom you do not like. The festivals of India were made in such a way in the past. In this culture, we had three hundred and sixty-five festivals because every day is worth celebrating. So every day was a festival, but slowly we moved from being agricultural families to office-going families. So only when the government gives you a holiday, that is a festival, otherwise it is not a festival. And gradually it is so happening that a festival means there was a time when the whole town or the village came together, it was a time of communion, it was a time of togetherness, it was a time of joy and celebration. But today festival means over-eating and watching cinema on the television. So it's very wonderful to see that in the name of festival all of you have assembled here and lighting a lamp together is very significant because lighting a lamp for each other, lighting a lamp for ourselves is a very important part of our lives.


Hi there, I'm Sandy Olnok, artist and paper crafter here on YouTube, and today I'm going to be watercoloring Photo Lady, a new stamp from Ilnotsen, in her photo studio. And this is the stamp set. Isn't she cute for all of you photography buffs? She's got great sentiments to go with her, and lots of different cameras. So I thought I'm going to use all the cameras, and I stamped the front ones first and then I stamped her in the background behind it. Now I'm going to use my new micron pen set. These are waterproof pens, don't mind my white pens that I put in there, to fill in the extra holes. They have all different sizes. This one came with nine, and I added a few more pens to it. So there are more holes to add more pens in if you want a little pen case. This one is pretty cool. So I'm using my rolling ruler. This is my sailing ruler. I've showed this a time or two before. You can see it's very yellow, which means it's really old. I had this thing from my sailing days when I lived in San Francisco, ages and ages and ages ago.  This is really easy to do. You could make it just a plain old cabinet like this and not add the detail that I'm going to. But I'm going to draw in some doors on the cabinet. You can make drawers. You can get as elaborate or not elaborate as you want to, and you could also pencil them in first. I did not do that. I decided to just go for it and see if I could all-part guess where I'm going to put my drawers and my doors and my door knobs and things. Yeah. You know, sometimes I just start working and I don't feel like stopping to find a pencil. But nonetheless, on something like this, I decided I was going to make it look like my studio. I have really, really dark wood on the cabinets in the studio, which means it's going to cover up a whole lot of this. So it doesn't really matter if I mess up on how I'm drawing all of these different cabinet doors. So no big deal, right? And one more over here on the left side just looks like it needed it. And then the rest of it, I'm actually going to freehand. I know, I know. People would be like, Sandy, how can you freehand? And the rest of us can't. You can freehand. Trust me. On something like this, it doesn't matter a whole lot. This is just a background element. Whoever's looking at this card is not going to be diving deep into how your cabinet was constructed. But I also realized I needed a top for the cabinet. So I just hand sketched that one in there as well. And now I'm ready to watercolor. Got out, of course, my Daniel Smith watercolor palette. And I'm going to mix up some colors for a skin tone. Starting with a little sepia and quinacridone gold, just to see what that looks like. And she comes out looking kind of sick-colored, right? That doesn't look so good. And nobody else ever has that happen, right? I am the only one, I'm sure, who ever has their skin tone come out weird. So I'm just going to add a little quinacridone burnt orange to that. And look, it just suddenly becomes skin tone. Dab off a little bit so I have a highlight and a shadow area. And then I realized I had not drawn in her camera strap. So I added that in with my micron pen, which for this one I used the 0.5 size. But I recommend testing it out and seeing what size is going to match your stamp lines the best because you want the edges of the stamp lines to look like they match when you're doing your drawing portions. So a little closer, probably could have gone with a 0.8 for this one. But, you know, there we have it. So I'm going to use a little bit of the same color in order to make that camera bag up on the top there, which if you wanted, you could use it for a purse for her instead of a camera bag. But I think it works well as a camera bag, probably intended to be that.  And I'm always amazed by how much color lightens in watercolor.  By the time I'm done, I need to put another layer on it if I want it to be really that nice, rich, dark, black, blackish brown color that I have in my studio. So paint it all around there. I'm using the number eight brush from the Silver Black Velvet line. Very common brush size for me nowadays. I use that one and the number 12, quite a bit. And notice I put more black in at this time. It's really hard to mix up multiple quantities in different batches of the same color. So know that that's not just you, that that's an issue for. She's got darker color in between her legs and then the rest, but I am going to add another layer on there so I will catch it on the flip side when I start doing that portion. Decided to use the same color for her hair. And then, of course, skipping around the image so I'm not painting next to anything that's already wet. I decided to do a little bit on the floor. I decided not to add a pattern in the floor. I originally was thinking about doing some tiles or something, but I thought, let me just do very, very pale, pale gray down here. Just to add an anchor on the bottom of the card, that's going to make everything else in the top section. Since this is going to be a clean and simple kind of design without any scene above it, it's going to make that top section look even whiter if I add just a little bit of color in the ground down below. To do the cameras, which that one is stamped upside down, I know that. If anybody's going to be complaining about it, I know I got that one upside down. Didn't realize it until after it was already stamped. But that's the way life goes. Cameras, to paint them black, you need to paint with thicker paint than I did for the floor. So just so you know that, you can get both gray and black out of the same paint. And her shirt now is going to have pink in between the purple. And since her hair has now gone pink because I didn't wait long enough, I darkened her hair up as well. Adding in a little bit more of that blackish brown color. And then I'm mixing up a color for her jeans using some Indian throne, which you can mix very thinly to get a light denim blue. And you can paint it a little bit heavier if you want a dark denim blue. It really depends on what you're looking for in your image. That's one of the things I think I love about watercolor is that with the same color you can get a lot of effects with it. Whereas with a Copic marker, when you put the marker down, it's that color all the time, which I often like because it's good and consistent, but it's also, you know, a drawback. I guess when you're comparing it to watercolor where you can get multiple shades out of one particular color. But look how nice and rich the color comes out on the second pass. It's also going to even out more than it did on the first pass, especially if you're careful with how you paint and try to make sure you keep the amount of pigment and water ratio the same across the whole thing. As soon as you start getting more water in one area and more pigments in another area, or you use two different thicknesses of paint you've mixed up, that's when you end up in trouble and have all kinds of areas around. So now here I'm having to mix up another color and guess at how thick the paint should be. So I'm just going to spread it across the whole thing and try to even out the amount of moisture versus pigment across the whole section because that tends to be a problem in general. So for her pants I'm going to make them a little darker. So again I could add another layer of that indent throne and give her some nice jeans. Add some darker black for the extra detail on the cameras and the phone she's holding. There are a couple phones by the way, so those who are not iPhone users you can also color any different phone. And you can do great cards too with this stamp set with just the cameras and the sentiments. You don't even have to color the photo lady because the cameras are really fun. I'm going to do some some Copic work with these in the future so stay tuned to Instagram and I will show you some other ideas for using this stamp set. And there we go! I glued it onto a card base, tied a little bit of twine around the top, adhered it down with some glossy accents, and I also put some glossy accents over all the glass. Hard to see there but it's on each one of the camera lenses as well as the phone lens or the phone front so that I get some shine on there as well. Thanks so much for spending some time with me here on YouTube. I will see you next time. I hope you go out and create something beautiful and share a card with someone who needs some encouragement. I'll talk to you guys later. Bye bye!


Who was in Ninda Rising's talk on estimation and deception? All right, so none overlapping audiences. That's fine too, because none of this is going to be already familiar to you. I'm just two words about who I am. I'm a freelance consultant. I'm interested. I used to be a programmer, so I know a little bit about tech stuff. Nowadays, I'm into consulting, which means I'm also interested in the dark side consulting and management and all that. Who's a programmer? Who's not a programmer? Interesting. So let's talk after. I want to know what you're interested in in this topic. But for everyone else, I think we should be on the same wavelength of what design means. But I'm getting ahead of myself. So practices, that's the essential point of this talk. Now, shape of the S, that's a good transition into another S-shaped thing, money, value. What am I hoping that you're going to get from this talk? My intention is that you come away from this talk with a better sense of why in AdL, design is approached the way it is. Why, what is the relationship between things like per-programming and test-reven development? Is it coincidence that there are those two things in, say, extreme programming and refactoring? Did they happen to be thrown into a pot and stirred? Or is there a deeper relationship? That's the first thing I want to talk about. I would like you to come away from this session with renewed enthusiasm for doing some practices that you have in maybe doing, but not quite as much as you should or you think you should. Who's doing test-reven development? OK, so there's some margin, right? Who's writing unit tests? We didn't raise their hand before, Mr. George. I hope that you can also, for those of you who are already doing test-reven development, the others will be convinced to try it because they have a better understanding of how it works and why it might work. For those of you who are already doing that, I hope that you will find out about new things you can do to go to the next level.  Create new stuff, things that nobody even know exists because no one has thought of them before. Because you're applying IDs from a different domain to the domain of source code design. That would be pretty exciting. And then people will say, 10 years from now, this was invented in Bangalore just after the session that happened in Algeria, India. That would be cool. So let's talk about code.  I've done this with big audiences where people were also in other roles. But I want to clarify the term design. So this talk is about design in one specific sense, which is the structure of source code. Not other kinds of design. So one article that I think will leave a lasting impression in this field is an article by Martin Flower from the year 2000, which was titled Provocatingly, Is Design Dead? Now the context for asking this question was back then, agile, and the word agile had not even been formally recognized as being the unifying theme of extreme programming and scrum. That was the year after 2001. Interestingly though, if you go to IEEE, if you are members of IEEE, and if you search for the word agile in the domain of software engineering, and if you do a date filter so you can get only the publications from before 2000, you will find one article that has the term agile in the title, which talks about an agile development methodology. So the term was actually invented by someone before the famous meeting in Snowbird. You've heard about the Snowbird thing, right, when the agile term was invented, supposedly, because it turns out that someone else had come up with it before. So it was reinvented. There is nothing new under this. Everything is reinvention. But anyway, I digress. So back then, there was a perception that because scrum and extreme programming were kind of down on heavy documentation and stuff like technical design documentation, like UML diagrams, that meant that scrum and extreme programming were anti-design. We don't do design. And so Fowler wrote this article to address this question. Are scrum and extreme programming against doing design? And he came up, of course, with a resounding no. So there is design in agile. So let's talk about design. What's the first thing that comes to mind? And I may already have primed you to think in those terms when I say the word design as programmers. I don't have Kandii anymore to motivate people. I had Kandii in the previous session. So relationships between subcomponents. What's a very common way of representing that? So one of the first things that come into mind when we think about design, whether we like that or not, whether we approve or not, is I would even say a specific kind of UML diagram, a class diagram. Something that shows the relationships of inheritance between classes. That's one very narrow, very specific view. But for most people, if you want to give the impression, the appearance of design, you are going to create a class diagram. That's kind of a ubiquitous view of design. And before agile came along, I think that was a big part of what people saw as the whole of software design. And so one thing that I think agile has already accomplished is it has exploded. It has demolished some dearly held notions about design that people used to have. Not everyone, but the mythical universal representation of design, the caricature of design, if you want. So there had long been, and there still is, tendency to insist that design has to be visual. And in fact, if you look at some textbooks and some formal body of knowledge listings, you will see you're only doing design if you do a visual representation. That's not true. Look at those two guys. Well, as far as visual, what they're doing is not so hot. It's scribbles. But I think what's happening here, I don't know, because I was not there when this picture was taken. This is something I took from Flickr. But for me, it's kind of the new picture I want to have in mind when I think about design. It's people whiteboarding together. So they're having a conversation. That's a lot of what design is about to me now. I think of design, and I'm going to reference Dave's talk, which was conveniently just before. How many of you were in Dave West's talk just before? OK, so not much of a shared background with the rest of Uber. He talked about design as the intentional and deliberate alterations of some of the elements or the relationships between the elements within a system. And one of the key words there is deliberate. Because, so for instance, if you have a design question or issue, if you're trying to make a design decision, what does it take for you to be doing design? I know that's hard to answer. But let me try and narrow it down. If you have only one ID, then you're going to implement that ID. So are you doing design? Yes or no? OK, I'm going to argue that if you have only one ID and you implement that ID, you are not doing design. So how many does it take? Two IDs? No, if you have two IDs, what you have is? Sorry? No, what you have if you have only two IDs.  And he's, oh, this pie looks nice. But this also looks nice. And he starts to death between the two piles of hay because they're equally big. And he doesn't know how to decide. If you have only two IDs, what you have is a dilemma.  So you are only doing design, in my view, if you have three alternatives. If you have three equally credible ways that you could do the design. And design is about articulating what the consequences of each ID is going to be and picking one with intention. And the visual thing is a secondary component. It doesn't have to be visual. You can do design in equations. You can do design in talk. Some people are going to be verbal. Some others are going to be like I attend to be. You can tell because I move my hands a lot when I talk, especially about conceptual stuff. So some people are naturally kinesthetic. So what's with the visual tyranny? Down with the visual tyranny. Anyway, I get carried away. Another thing that came from, actually, that's pre-agile, so from extreme programming, is refactoring. How many of you do refactoring? Great, everyone, nearly everyone. But the thing about refactoring, and do you remember how it's defined in Fowler's book, refactoring is improving the design of existing codes. So that's the definition from the subtitle of the refactoring book. Improving the design of existing codes. But what that means is the code has to exist first, and then we do design. And that goes counter to the old conception of software development as a sequence of activities in which design preceded coding, which may have been a good idea at the time. But it led to this silly notion of design is something that a bunch of people do in a group, and then they throw it over the wall as the expression goes, to the coders, and then the coders implement the design. Does that work? Have you seen it work? But did it work before? OK, we're not going to go into the historical debate, but I think the agile community basically smashed that notion to bits. It's dead. This one, I think we still have work to do in this one, so it's a work in progress. We were able to go ahead. No, OK, so I agree.  I could put myself into your shoes and say, yes. But rather than say that way, take the notion that you are only doing design if you have three alternatives. Because I know some people who pretend that they have thought deeply about a topic, and then they have come up with a solution.  And they have one way that the design could be. They are not designers. They are fanatics. Maybe I'm making some of you mad now, but OK, let's talk more about that after. But the key point is we have at least one practice which gets us used to the notion that design is something that can and probably should, at least in some of the time, happen after the coding. And so we interleave design and coding rather than doing all of the design first and all of the coding next. So that's one thing that's already been kind of subtle, decided. I'm more interested in thinking about what comes after. What are the rest of the things that we have to rethink in order to have our design activities really incorporate what we have learned from 10 years now of agile. So we are starting to have this notion that design is not something that one solitary thinker, so that's supposed to be my rendering of the rodin thinker, but you can tell I'm not a very good artist. But as long as it gets the message across, it's not something you do in your chair. It's something that you do in conversation, in discussion and dialogue and debate with others. The problem is if you pick up a book on design and you try to see conversations mentioned in there, I don't think you will find much mention of that. So you pick up any book about software design. I have read a few, older ones, newer ones, the book on design patterns, some books from the old times. There's a very good one which is called Essential Systems Analysis, which although it has analysis in the title, it's as much about design. But what was apparent in all of them is kind of a single-minded focus on design as an individual activity. So I think that's something that's still in the future. Somebody is going to reinvent design practices that speak to design as a collective activity. And maybe that's going to come from the other design disciplines who are probably closer to that than we in the software development community are. And this one, I think, still has to be addressed at all. Design is not about properties of the code or it's not about documents. So that's a very deep-seated one. You can see it. Who's heard about cyclomatic complexity? Anyone using Sonar? I feel bad for you, because I think whatever version doesn't matter. I'm sorry. The problem with tools like Sonar is that they focus on the code as if code was something like metal or plastic or a substance with its measurable properties that you could predict if you can measure the melting point of plastic. You can measure the flash point of an explosive substance. And you can use that to make predictions, to say, if I put this in a liquid or in an environment which is at this temperature, then it's going to melt or explode or something like that. And what I think, what I see behind the ideas like Sonar, is kind of trying to have the same predictive ability. So if I have a piece of software that has this much cyclomatic complexity, that's its flash point. It's going to explode into a shower of sparking bugs. So that's what I call the code as a naturally occurring substance fallacy. But design is not about that. It's not about achieving that kind of predictive power about how this stuff that's out there is going to behave. Sorry? Let's save that, because I'm going to bring my side of the argument. And then when you have that in mind, I think we'll be in a good place. But because I'm already anticipating at least part of what I think is a reasonable counter-argument, which is, well, if it's not about the code, we spend a lot of time in there, down in the source code. So if it's not about the code, what is it about? And I'm glad you asked the question, if you didn't. But I'm glad you asked the question, because I think it's about brains. What's the salient fact about software development? It's that until they manage to automate it, and I think good luck with that, it's human creative activity. So it's performed by a specific piece of hardware, which happens to be legs and arms and a heart and a stomach. But possibly the most interesting part of that is near the top, encased in a protective shell of bone. And it's the brain. So I want to talk, we've talked about design. I want to talk about your brain.  So I'm using the expression, your brain with deliberate intent. So I'm going to be talking about things that happen in your brain, that 99% sure apply to you as well as to me. And hey, it's great, we have something in common. So what's the salient thing about your brain? It's a system designed by evolution. Evolution is not smart. Evolution is patient. Very different things. So your brain is the result of, I hope I'm offending anyone with this observation, but that's what I happen to believe.    And it's maybe a pretentious thing to say, but I'm tempted to hypothesize a law, the law of software quality at Saragant. But just to try that on you, bugs in the code always come from bugs in the brain. I know that's a strong statement, but I'm making strong statements so that they can be disproved, so we can argue about them. I'm not attached to those opinions. They are just my best guess at the moment. So everything we need to know about software bugs we can learn, maybe not everything, but a good deal of what we need to know about software bugs we can learn by looking at the bugs in our own brain. So you're going, what does it mean by a bug in the brain? Maybe some of you already know, but I'm going to talk about that. So you've seen Mary Popendick's talk, have you? That was the day before. So maybe not as much of an overlap between the management, agility, and the technical agility. And that's a shame. It's interesting to straddle the fence, to see both sides. But she talked about something that's come out of recent research, which is that the brain has two systems, a fast system and a slow system. The fast is heuristic. It's fast and frugal. It goes fast, but it makes lots of mistakes. And it has a slow, more deliberative, more analytical system. So that's one very broad way of looking at things. So I'm mostly going to be talking about mistakes that we make when we rely on the fast system. So one of them is what I call overinterpretation, the fact that we do not tolerate ambiguity. I'm going to talk more about that. Another interesting one is the mind projection fallacy. We project. What I mean by that is if we think something, if we experience something in our brains, we tend to believe that it exists, that it is in the world out there. And actually, that's false. So I'm just going to prove that to you now. I'm going to introduce you to my girlfriend. She's nice, though. She's fully clothed. I want to, so I'm going to ask you to raise your hand in a few minutes, but don't do that right away because I want everyone to do it at the same time. So instructions. If you see the dancer going around this way, pivoting on her left foot, please, when I say, not now, raise your left hand. If you see her pivoting the other way on her right foot, raise your right hand. Now, look around you. Keep your hands up. And you will notice something interesting, which is that. I didn't get that. You're not all raising the same hand. That's the interesting observation. But you're all seeing the same thing. I showed this to my children. So I have three kids, boys. And they all have the same reaction. They say that the truth comes out of the mouth of babes of children. And they were looking at the image. And they saw the dancer reverse directions. Who has seen this yet? Not everyone, but some of you will see it happen. It will kind of take you by surprise. And maybe you will have the same idea that my kids had, which was, Tandy, you changed the picture. Of course, that's the natural explanation. But no, I did not change the picture. So what's going on there? It's interesting.  This image is really, I mean, objectively, insofar as anything can be known objectively, this image is ambiguous. It has no z-axis information. It has no depth information. So some of you maybe do image processing. All the information is flat. So the image could be either the projection of a spinning dancer going clockwise or counterclockwise. It could be either of those.  And you have to make an effort of imagination to see it as a left or a right foot. And it works. And when you master the skill of making her change direction and purpose, you will have learned something totally useless, but you will at least have learned something.  It insists that you are seeing her spin in one specific direction. And actually, the reality is otherwise. So that's, I want to say, QED at this point, proof. Anybody disagree with that? Anybody disagree with me that your brain is lying to you? OK. Well, so you could retreat and say, it's not really my brain, it's my perceptual system. But the rest of me is fine. OK. So let's continue talking about bugs, which are those bugs in the brain are collectively known as cognitive biases. So I'm going to talk briefly about three of those, respectively known as confirmation bias, anchoring, and the Dunning-Kruger effect. Now, it's not just those three. There are many, many more. So just to start a list, groupthink, narrative fallacy, illusion of transparency, change-bindness, availability heuristic, learn-helplessness, conformity bias, bias-tender effect, there are many, many, many of those. There are many very solid studies which prove those biases, those bugs exist. So I mean, cognitive scientists, they would make good testers of software because they know how to really reproduce a bug. They know how to isolate a bug. They know how to really, really narrow things down. So they have definite proof that it's this thing that's going on and not something else which looks like it. So these guys are good. We could learn from those guys. But do we learn from those guys? Have you read any? So who's got a formal education in software engineering? I can't raise my hand. Well, I have a degree in software engineering, but I'm not a didact, which is why I get away with studying things I'm not supposed to. So those of you who have formal education in software engineering, have you read a paper about cognitive biases as part of your studies? And that's a shame, because we could really learn a lot from those guys. But the amount of ink devoted in all of software engineering as a discipline, it's not zero. But the amount of ink devoted to those topics is, I think, about as big as that dot on the exclamation point that we just moved away from. So very, very tiny. There are a few guys who have been saying for years and years that we should pay more attention to psychology and cognitive science. And pretty much nobody listens to them. So what can I do? I can only try and continue what I've started doing, which is to make you experience some of those cognitive biases. That's the next topic you're ahead of me. So I'm going to try and be quick with those. So we're not going to try this experiment live. I'm just going to tell you what it is. But any testers in the room? OK, confirmation bias. I'm going to directly address the equivalent in software. And then I'm going to tell you what this is. When you write a piece of code, and then you try to think about ways that it could be broken, you're going to think almost systematically about tests that verify that it does work. You're going to be thinking about positive test cases. A guy named Peter Wason did and repeated many times this experiment where he shows four cards, three k, eight a. So the original cards were actually, I think, a, k, four and seven. So I don't know why he picked something that spells the name of a gun. But I wanted to avoid the gun reference. And he asked people to check, to validate or invalidate a rule. And the rule was, so those cards have a number on one side and a letter on the other side. And the question was, which cards do you need to turn over to check whether the rule that occurred with an event number on the front as a consonant on the back? Or by Wason? OK, so there are different answers and only one correct answer. So some of you are wrong. Sorry to break this to you. And so he tested various hypotheses, like are people misunderstanding the question. And frankly, I did not take special care in formulating the question, so those of you who are wrong now, it could be not because of confirmation bias, but because I'm confused about asking the question the right way. But what matters is you can look at the paper and you can look at everything he did to make sure that it was this one thing and not something else that was going on. But let's try and reason this through. So do you need to turn over the three? No, why? Because it's not an event number. So it doesn't matter what's on the other side. The rule only talks about event numbers. So we do need to turn over the eight, because if it has a vowel on the back, then the rule is disproven. Do we need to turn over the K? Yes, no, yes, no. I kept your minds. No, we don't. Because whatever is on the other side will only confirm the rule, so anyone who thinks that we do need to turn over the K, I strongly suspect that this is confirmation bias talking. We don't need to turn over the K. If it's an event number on the back, then it's a confirmation of the rule. If it's an odd number of the back, as per the reasoning earlier, we don't need to turn it over. Because it's not covered by the rule. Do we need to turn over the A? Yes, because if it's an event number on the other side, then the rule is disproved. So you can see right there that it's a hard task. Interestingly, there is a way to make this task a lot easier, even though it would be structurally exactly the same. And can anyone guess? I'm sure you're going to be surprised by the answer. OK, so you're all programmers, right? So you know, you can tell me that. If I change the name of a variable, does the program behave in the same way? I change all instances of variable foo to bar instead. And there are no other variables named bar in the system. So there's not a problem of aliasing or conflict. You need to go faster. But this is so interesting, right? So we change a variable name, and there are no traps. Does the programmer the same? And the mind doesn't work that way. So if I were to change the system to say, instead of event number, I'm going to say a human aged older than 21, OK? And instead of odd number, it's a human aged younger than 21. Instead of a consonant, I say a human carrying an alcoholic drink, OK? And instead of a vowel, it's a human carrying a non-alcoholic drink. And the setting is a bar. So this presentation does include the joke. A man walks into a bar, and he sees a waist and test.  Now, if I ask you, who are you? So you see a young guy, and you see an old guy. Basically, if you ask someone, are you a good driver? Are you a good programmer? People tend to systematically rate themselves as being better than an average driver, for instance. So probably it applies to programmer, but I don't think it has been studied formally. People systematically tend to rate their own ability the higher, even as they are, lower in the actual performance. So that's called the Dunning-Rueger effect. Anchoring and priming, those are fascinating. The classic study on priming, sorry. And there's an experiment, but I'm going to skip that. I can tell you about it later. I want to show you something else instead, which is, I think, it's worth a laugh. Some of you may have already seen it. If you have, please don't spoil it. Because for anyone who hasn't seen it, it's a very nice surprise. But I'm getting ahead of myself. So priming, they did this experiment with a control group and a normal group. So it was a controlled experiment of students. And they asked the students to perform a word test. So put a sentence together. Very simple test of linguistic ability. But actually, what they didn't tell the student was that the experiment was not the word test itself. It was what happened when the students walked away from the room where the experiment was held and back to the elevator, which was at the end of a long corridor. And what the experimenters did, sneaky people. In one half of the word test that they gave to people to make a sentence together, there were words like pension, Florida as in the US. So that fluoridize where people go when they're retired. Dentures, false teeth, stuff like that. So what does that make you think of all people? And the control group was getting words like apple, bicycle, stuff like that. So what do you think happened? Excellent. Good prediction. But at the time when they did this experiment, that was extremely surprising. Because priming effects had already been approved and studied. But the dominant expectation was that if I'm talking with you and I'm sleeping in some words in the conversation, it can maybe affect your verbal behavior. So you're going to talk to someone else. And maybe you're going to use the same words in imitation. But not your behavior. People were sure that your actual motor behavior was not dependent on priming effects. And these guys proved that, indeed, motor behavior could be influenced by things you had no idea were influencing you. And so linearizing in her earlier talk was talking about estimation, which is an interesting problem for programmers. And she was showing how anchoring and priming effects could change the estimates that you give. So for instance, the weather outside may change the estimates you give in an estimator. That's something. We think we are giving only rational answers to rational questions. But actually, we're influencing all sorts of things. And all because I'll save the surprise for Christmas if you open the presents as late as possible. But I want to talk about practices. Penning poker is about conversation. So conversation ties back into how long is it going to take if we take this decision, take this other decision. And that's design. But it's not the main reason I want to talk about Penning poker. And then we're going to talk about future directions. And maybe that's also something we can talk about after what I mean by that is whenever you grab me in the hallway or at coffee or because you've been thinking or understanding is correct or you want to run some ID past me, and I will be available. The thing about the current design practices is you can pair them together with Penning. First example I thought of, which was the first inspiration for saying, yes, I really need to give a talk about this and tie the things together for other people so that we have more brains working on that particular way of seeing things. Because clearly it's producing interesting results. When I came across TDD, I thought, oh, genius. And then you write the code and then you refactor. But it's not what I'm. The focus is going to be on test first code later. So who does that? Not quite the same thing as a write code. And I also write unit tests. Because if you write the unit test after the code, you are not going to get the same good results as if you do test-driven development as it was introduced by Kenbeck, which is write the test first. Write the code after. Why is that? The answer is on the side. Confirmation points. Who said there were a tester? So do you know a guy named Landford Myers? So that has a list of things that equals the actions of something like this. I'm not sure if you remember axiom number four. But raise your hand if you have heard this. A developer should never test their own code. Who, wait, wait, so who believed it? I can tell you this is a little confession time. At one point, I was very loud when arguing with my management. No, I'm not going to test my own code. Everyone knows that's not something you do.  It's a bad use of my time. We should have an external testing. And obviously, that's one of the things that has changed with this reprogramming in general. We're much more into developers that were designed. Testing the way a developer does it. Testing the way a developer approaches it. Go figure. Whenever someone says something like that, which is a very sweeping claim, and they have a because, in general, what history remembers, what we remember, is just why this inversion is so powerful. So that's the data figure that I was, oh, yes. That's the reason. And maybe that's not the whole reason. Maybe I'm just making a mountain between the world software and the world of cognitive science. And there are others. I think about their programming as something that is a huge antidote to the Dunning-Kruger effect. What happens when you have a young, novice, inexperienced programmer, and you ask them to write some code on their own? They think they're a hotshot. They think they're the best programmer in the world. That's the Dunning-Kruger effect at work. And so if you ask them to do a code review, what? No, I don't need a code review. My code is perfect. Who's seen that? Or something like that? OK, some of you are lucky. You have young developers who know proper humidity. Maybe I don't know. But nevertheless, I think that's a, and maybe the rest of you are already doing programming. So what you do is you pair a more novice programmer with a more experienced one. So the more experienced one checks that enthusiasm. At the same time, he sees transferring knowledge. But another thing interesting happens is even the more experienced programmer is actively learning something from the younger because he has to bring his ideas down to the concrete level where the younger one can actually understand. So teaching something is a great way to understand it better. Which is also why programming is done by smart people. Because you're teaching the dumbest thing there is, which is a computer. So whenever you have to transfer some knowledge from your head to the computer, you have to be very precise about what you think. So that's why programming is a great way to debug your thinking. We should do more of that. We should do more debugging of our thinking, which means we should be able to reverse engineer the bugs, reproduce them, know about them, install patches for the bugs that we cannot fix. Ah, planning poker. Planning poker is an interesting case. I wanted to at least have one example where the agile practice. Because I don't want to spend one hour saying, agile is great because it cures all confirmation bias. Who's going to believe me?  And that's also, I think, why we should learn more cognitive science. Because there are some things we've been doing which are stupid, and we should stop doing them. And I think planning poker is one of them. So maybe some of you are mad with me now. But that's OK. Planning poker is problematic in the sense that it plays right into anchoring effects. So anchoring is a slightly different thing from priming, but it's the same deal. If I want to get a raise from my boss, so that's a tip. Maybe some of you will find useful, even though it's nothing to do with design. But I will gladly share it. You go to your boss, and you ask for a very high raise. You say, I don't know how much is a typical raise here, but you ask for a 30% raise. And that's your opening bid. And of course, you're going to, times are tight. I can do that. OK, how about a 20% raise then? And maybe you will get a pleasant surprise, because the boss tells you, OK, that's what I have to do to keep you here. I'm going to give you a 20% raise. What you have done is you have anchored the negotiation. It's a bad thing. Don't actually do it, unless you have to. You have anchored the negotiation at a starting number, which is higher than it would otherwise have been. And maybe your boss knows about it, so the second you step into his office, he says, I know you're going to ask me for a 5% raise, but forget it. We don't have that kind of money. You have been anchored. So it works both ways. And what happens in planning poker is that someone gives a number. I think this story is a 13. What happens? Cognitive bias kicks in. Everybody anchors on the 13. And what's worse, the rules for planning poker make this even worse, because they say, if there are people in the room who disagree with the 13, we do a second round, until everyone converge. What happens? The people who are the most convincing, even if they're wrong, they are the ones that everyone converges on. So instead of having a correct estimate, you are encouraging people to play for the leader, basically. OK, that's one of the things we can talk about. I have very little time to cover future directions, but I actually prefer to do that in the informal conversations. But something that I think is a good idea, you all do retrospectives. Try this. Do a design-themed retrospective. Do it the exact same way you would do a normal retrospective, which is don't do that with a code in front of you, don't do that over email. Get people in a group, in a room, and get them to say, what do you think is working well with our design? What could be improved? What have we learned about design in the past iteration? Try that. I think it's a potent combination, because it combats during rigor effect for one, because you have a variety of perspectives. It brings cognitive diversity, which has been, you can always write to me and email me, and I will send you pointers to research. Diversity is generally a positive thing, so it's an untied-out for group thing. One thing that I think works great is the coding dojo. I've seen people who participate in the coding dojo become better programmers over time in an impressive way. Perprogramming, I think the active ingredient of perprogramming, and we use that in the coding dojo, is what I call programming out loud. So that's where, instead of being in the zone, with your headphone zone, and you're just typing away, hammering at the keyboard, you try to explain to someone else what is going through your mind as you program. So that's what happens in perprogramming. But you can reproduce that in other settings. And so I think coding dojo as a way to practice programming and design moves is a great thing. So you put a group of people, 10 people in a room, and you have only one pair programming, projecting the screen on a projector. And everyone is allowed to interrupt as soon as they don't understand what's going on. That's basically the rule. There's a little more details, but I just want to throw that as a teaser. So that's the kind of thing that has already been invented. But really what I can't wait to see is what you will invent with this new weapon in your arsenal, which is, let's go see what the cognitive science people are saying about how the brain works. And let's figure out how we can apply that to software design problems. So to close, the way I want to summarize this whole talk and tie everything together is by saying to me, this is the new understanding of design. Design is about practices that help your brain deal with code more effectively. And that's where I'll stop. Thank you all. The answer is 30. It's a bit dark? OK, so it's easy to miss something that's dark on a dark background. Well, maybe that's posed the effect of it. Who knew about this one already? But anyway, at some point, he was walking in front of someone wearing white. Did you notice anything? So maybe there's, with the contrast, there's something of a confounding effect, as they call it. But this is such a fun video, I always show it. So another kind of cognitive bias, attention bias. I don't want to keep you from the coffee break. Thanks again. And feel free to come talk to me any time now or later to grab one of my cards, or to ask me for one of my cards. And see you tomorrow when I'm doing another talk, if you're interested. Thanks.


All right, so we're on our way to understanding the BET model, how that predicts multi-layer adsorption onto surfaces. We can predict how much adsorption there is of molecules on the first layer or into the nth layer in terms of the amount of the surfaces uncovered, this data knot quantity. We'd really rather know how the volume of a gas adsorbs depend on the pressure in the gas above the surface so that we can do some experimental studies of adsorption. So that's the next thing to consider is what do these surface coverage levels in molecules in different layers tell us about how much volume of a gas would be absorbed. So let's take just a few quick examples to get our bearings. So suppose I tell you that theta sub 1 equal to 1, 100% of the surface is covered at the first level, none is covered at the second or third or fourth or or zeroth level. So basically I've got one monolayer covering the surface, so that means the total amount of gas adsorbed is whatever it would have taken to cover a monolayer because that's what I've done. I've covered the surface by one monolayer. That would be for example if I get rid of these molecules and I cover the surface by exactly one monolayer. On the other hand if I say I've got a full bi-layer covered, I've got a surface, I've got layer number one adsorbed, I've got a full second layer absorbed, 100% of the surface is covered by two molecules. Clearly in this case the adsorbed volume would be twice what it would take to cover one monolayer. But let's do a slightly trickier case. What if half of the surface is covered with one molecule, half of the surface is covered with two molecules? So let's go ahead and put these molecules back, half my surface, I need an even number of molecules, half my surface is covered by only one molecule, half covered by two. Then from the picture you can see that it's one and a half monolayers worth of surface. One way to think about that is half the surface is covered by one molecule, half the surface is covered by twice as many molecules. So half times two gives me one, half times one gives me a half, all together that adds up to one and a half monolayers worth of coverage. So what we're building our way to understanding with these examples is the total amount of gas adsorbed onto the surface is the monolayer coverage multiplied by some number. And what that number is is each layer of coverage gets the fraction of the surface covered by that many molecules. Go ahead and multiply by that many molecules and add those numbers up. So all the way from no coverage up to infinite layers of coverage. So for example, one molecule times the fraction that's covered by one, two times the fraction that's covered by two molecules, three times the fraction of coverage that's covered by three molecules and so on. So this is a general equation to understand how the adsorbed volume depends on the amount that's adsorbed into each one of these layers. So that's now in a form we can do something with because we have a result for what the surface coverage in the nth layer is. So this, I can rewrite this as monolayer times the sum of n times theta n. Theta n itself is c times k to the n, p to the n, and theta not, the amount of uncovered surface, bare surface. So three of these terms in here depend on n. The other two that don't, c and theta not, I'll pull those out of the sum. And in fact, let's go ahead and write v adsorbed relative to vm. So I'll go ahead and pull vm over to the other side. So outside of the summation, I've got a c, theta not, inside the sum, I've got n, k to the n, p to the n. That sum we can do something with. Let me go ahead and write that just for short hand. I'll write that as c theta sum of nx to the n, where this x is k times p. This quantity k times p is raised to the nth power. That makes it look a little more like something we know how to manipulate with summation notation. So let's see what we're going to do to get to our next result. We're interested in trying to understand what this infinite sum is. The sum of 0x to the 0 plus 1x to the 1 plus 2x to the 2. So that's basically x plus 2x squared plus 3x cubed plus 4x to the fourth and so on. The fact that I've got an n out front as well as an n up in the exponent makes me think I should do something like take a derivative. So if I just had the sum of x to the n, that would be one thing. If I take the derivative of that sum, the derivative is going to pull down the exponent in each one of those terms. So that derivative itself is going to give me pull down the exponent to give me an n. The exponent decreases from n down to n minus 1. And that's what I have left. We can go ahead and include all of those terms. So that looks a little bit like the thing I'm interested in. It differs because the term I'm interested in has an x to the n. The one I've just been playing with down here has an x to the n minus 1. So instead of taking the derivative of this sum, what I actually want to do is multiply the whole thing by x. So if I multiply by x over here, multiply by x over here, then that will have the effect of x times x to the minus 1. That'll give me x to the n, which is what I'm after. All right. So what I've just figured out is this infinite sum that I'm interested in, sum of n x to the n, that's all equal to x times the derivative of the summations of just the x to the n's. 1 plus x plus x squared plus x cubed and so on without any coefficients in front. The reason that's useful, that transformation that I've just done is useful, is because this summation is a power series that we may be familiar with. 1 plus x plus x squared plus x cubed and so on. That is 1 over 1 minus x. So if you write down the Taylor series for 1 over 1 minus x, that is exactly what the Taylor series is. So what we have figured out now is, again, this summation that is the one that I'm actually interested in is equal to x times the derivative of this thing, which is equal to 1 over 1 minus x. So I can take, let's go ahead and take the derivative of 1 over 1 minus x. That's 1 minus x squared in the denominator with a negative sign.  I also need to use chain rule to take the derivative of the 1 minus x itself. So that brings in another negative sign. The x out front sticks around. So this net result of x times this derivative is x over 1 minus x quantity squared. All right. So all this work on the side has convinced us that the summation of nx to the n is equal to x over 1 minus x quantity squared. So I'll use that to rewrite this result. My adsorbed volume over the monolayer volume is equal to c theta naught times the sum. The sum is equal to x over 1 minus x quantity squared. I'll go ahead and write these x's now as kp's. So the x in the numerator looks like k times p. The x in the denominator looks like 1 minus kp, the 1 minus x in the denominator looks like 1 minus kp, and that gets squared. All right. So now I am almost there. I've got the adsorbed volume written as a function of pressure on the right hand side. That's good. But it's also a function of theta naught, which is something I don't know. So I still need to do a little more work to figure out what theta naught is equal to. So the key here is to remember that every one of these surface sites is going to be occupied either by zero molecules or one or two or three or four all the way up to infinity. So the sum of theta naught and theta 1 and theta 2 and theta 3 and so on has to add up to 1. So I can say theta naught is going to be 1 minus the sum of all these. I'll go ahead and put parentheses around that. So it's going to be 1 minus the sum of all the theta n's. This time the sum isn't over all the n's, just over n equals 1 up to infinity. So that's what theta naught is. The theta n's, I know what those are. Theta n is equal to this expression. So I can write 1 minus the sum of c, k to the n, p to the n, theta naught, which again if I pull out the c theta, all that's left inside is k to the n, p to the n. If I resurrect my notation here, that k, p to the quantity to the n is, I'll just write that as x to the n. That is the same summation, summation of x to the n is equal to 1 minus x if I sum from zero to infinity. So again, 1 plus x plus x squared plus x cubed and so on adds up to 1 over 1 minus x. Here I'm only starting from the n equals 1 term. So I don't have 1 plus x plus x squared plus x cubed. I just have x plus x squared plus x cubed plus x to the fourth and so on. So I can rewrite this infinite sum using this result, but I have to write 1 over 1 minus x. That includes an extra term, the n equals zero term. I have to remember that I didn't include that term and subtract it back out. So again, that minus 1 is because I'm not including the n equals zero term in this sum. So and I've forgotten the subscript zero, so that theta is a theta naught. So is this one. Let's rewrite this 1 minus c theta naught inside the parentheses here.  This one and this one cancel and so I just have an x over 1 minus x. All this is equal to theta naught. So my goal was to solve for theta naught. I've got a theta naught on the right hand side as well, but I can isolate all these theta knots. If I do a little bit of algebra now, I'm going to multiply on both sides by 1 minus x to get rid of this fraction. So on the left side, I've got theta naught times 1 and theta naught times minus x. So I've multiplied on the left by 1 minus x. On the right, I have this 1 that gets multiplied by 1 minus x. The c theta times x, the denominator has gone away. C theta times x, that's got a theta naught in it. So I'm going to move this over to the left hand side. So I'll move that over here as a plus c theta times x. So all of that stuff is equal to 1 minus x. Rearranging on the left side, I've got theta times 1 minus x plus cx. So I'm going to bring that over to the right hand side that looks like 1 minus x plus cx that's now showing up in the denominator. And that's what I've obtained for my value of theta naught. So that's just doing a fair amount of algebra to figure out the value of theta naught. The reason I wanted theta naught is to plug it into this expression so I know how much volume of gas would adsorb under the surface. So if I take this result for theta naught and plug it into this expression, we're in the home stretch now. What I get is c times theta naught, which looks like when I write these x's now, I'll remember that x is equal to kp. So I'll write 1 minus kp on the top. In the denominator, I've got 1 minus kp plus c times kp. That's writing this theta naught. I need to multiply that by kp over 1 minus kp quantity squared. So this 1 minus kp cancels one of the two in the denominator down here and nothing else will cancel. So I'm ready to write a final looking result now. Total amount of volume of gas that's going to adsorb under the surface relative to the volume of a monolayer is going to be c times kp in the numerator. In the denominator, let's put this one first. So let me write 1 minus kp and also this longer term, 1 minus kp plus ckp. So we'll leave that expression there. We've obtained now exactly what we're looking for. I have an expression for how the volume of gas that will adsorb under the surface depends on the pressure. All I need to know to do that is what the pressure is, the equilibrium constant for that second third fourth layer adsorption reaction, as well as that BET constant c that tells us the ratio of the first layer adsorption constant relative to those higher level equilibrium constants. So there's an expression that we can use. What we'll do next is take a look at what that expression tells us and what it means about how gases actually do adsorb under surfaces and compare that to the Langmuir model.


Every time I walk until the butcher Hey, how's it going to happen? Getting that meat smell in my lungs


In this video, I'm talking about a 0.0088 penny stock that could be getting a Amazon partnership That's in its final stages now. I've got to say of course penny stocks are incredibly volatile It is a very high risk, but high reward situation with penny stocks You can be making a lot of money off penny stocks, but also they can drop like a rock They can go either way at times So do bear that in mind and only put in what you're okay with in terms of your portfolio what you're comfortable with right? So this one is interesting because it's getting a recent Amazon deal and there's a lot of positives I'm going to go through a list of positives of this stock. So stay through right till the end So you hear the full strategy and full analysis of this stock. Okay, that'd be fantastic Thank you for all the support and the channel everybody, you know, we're getting close to that 12 subs Well, we've just hit 11,000 subscribers now. We're going on our way to 12,000 I'm hoping to get to 20,000 within the next couple of months. So if you could help out, that'd be fantastic Do like the video. Let's get into the information without favor of you So the one we're talking about today is called CBD life sciences and the ticker symbol for this is CBD L And I must preface this this is high risk So this isn't one that's necessarily worth holding on to long term It could be if you like the company, right? It's up to you I'm not a financial advisor up to you if you do your research then like it Yeah, you know, feel free to hold on long term But I would say to me this is a swing trade short term to medium term Potential of trying to get your profits in of you know, 50 to 100 percent Profit gain on this one and just taking the profits and running to the bank So let's go into this stock today CBD L and the Amazon partnership, which is massive It's a massive catalyst because this could Explode the revenue of the company because they're able to leverage Amazon's brand will go into it Before we do that I've got to say consider if you've been a subscriber for a while or you're new to the channel even as well Or maybe just watch a few videos to see. Oh, well, should I actually join this right? So again members only page We've got this set upon the join button here You can click the join button and join the stock club. This is a stock. We mentioned before CLIS click stream This one has run up massively. So I said here. It's currently at zero point ten And I was I thought it's gonna move up to zero point one five to zero point thirty as of the Magnus video Is it about zero point four zero zero point four five around that so it's moved up massively It's a very interesting stock I'm gonna break that down favor in the recent Instagram live that they've done this company's Companies prominent people in the company. This will be my next video if you want to subscribe to check that out very interesting stuff Very interesting app a very innovative app. Let's get into CBD L the final stages with Amazon. So what we got so here CBD life sciences for its wholly subsidiary LBC Bioscience president CEO Lisa Nelson announced the companies in final stages with Amazon So it's proud to announce the companies in the final stages with getting its hemp products on Amazon The company decided to introduce the addition of its hemp products on the shopping giant Amazon.com In a move that emphasizes the importance of hemp in the future of both LBC life sciences and the nutritional hemp market which is blowing up around the world the products We plan to distribute on Amazon focus on health and wellness side health and wellness side That's really important because this is part of how they can actually, you know Actually get accepted on to Amazon and find a particular niche a best-selling niche that they can sell and gain revenues from right So this would be one of our top-selling pain relief creams along with anxiety and sleep Tinctures Amazon are going to be greatly beneficial to CBD life sciences and this is why so there is many Hemp companies, but all our products are organic and kershia. So this is their unique selling point They are for your organic products. They have the best quality products They say according to Lisa and over the competition with that being said we expect explosive revenue in the upcoming months Which is very interesting because if they're able to get on to Amazon and leverage Amazon's brand people searching for these types of Products and then this you know this this company's products come up onto the top list Then they're able to not just create their own brand and their own website They're able to leverage Amazon's brand and get sales through Amazon and actually that could actually grow the revenue massively Okay, and I do agree with that if they can get this on Amazon if they can market this and push it up to the Top list on Amazon. There is a lot of potential with this one This is one that could either drop like a rock or it could go pretty high And then there's also the middle of a swing trade or potential with some gains Now another area where nobody's talking about and again, you've got to think about the industry when it comes to these sorts of products, right? There's a political climate where there's deregulation going on or potential deregulation going on where these products are going to be more Acceptable particularly in the States, right United States. So look you can have your own views But at the end of the day, I'm not getting political. I'm just saying you got to think what is going to be good that pertains to my money Okay, it's not about the politics. It's about your money And at the end of the day if there is favorable Political conditions for these types of products then there is a lot of money to be made in this area Okay, and that's what we've got to think about as investors not to get too caught up in the politics think about your money, right? What else are they doing? So nobody's talking about this, but they've actually got a wholesale bullcorder part of their website What does this mean? Why is this important? So not only can they do business to consumer B2C Selling direct to the consumer whether it's through Amazon or their website, but they're looking it seems to be from this They're looking to do business to business B2B What that means is is they're looking to try and get companies that take on their products and buy bullcorders Now this is another area that could explode the revenue and as we have a deregulation of this area And as there's more stores, there may be more more stores that actually take on the products of what they do Right and they bullcorder them and then that explodes the revenue It's a potential possibility, right? And they've got that service available where you can buy wholesale bullcorders of the Products as a company, right? So very interesting stuff. Now. Who are they though? So they was founded as superstar there Uh, and it was incorporated as a C corporation Under the laws the company primary focus is developing organic products such as CBD oil drops Coffee infused vitamins pet products pain relief Basically almost everything they have a range of products put it that way mission statement is to promote and monitor the The sector and work for a favorable social economic environment towards the industry in the united states Which is happening It'll strive to introduce our products to various organizations to benefit their health issues As well. So they create innovative products in a growing market demand. So yeah, it is a growing market There's more of a demand for it. They're creating a loads of products as well. So what are the positives? So There is a lot of products on the website. I'm not sure if it was hundreds And I think it's around 50 to 100 products on their website But they've essentially they've got lots of products. So what that means is is they can sell to wholesalers You know, they can sell to businesses B2b they can sell direct to consumer all these different products And they can get a lot of these products on amazon as well And all it takes is a couple of the products that they do put on amazon to do well And be you know top winners on amazon for them to actually make massive incomes It they don't all have to be successful on amazon in sales The more you put on amazon the more they work with amazon and put on their listings The higher potential they've got to actually increase in their sales figures So the there's a potential amazon deal incoming in terms of that partnership of actually getting their products on amazon And again, there's a good political ecosystem. By the way, like the video if you're enjoying this and find it interesting There's a good political ecosystem for this in terms of deregulation in this area And again, we're thinking this in terms of how it pertains to our money. Okay Now moving on they've also looking to release more products So they've got all the products but looking to release more products. So this is a skincare line as well So the announces five new skincare products and it's working with the following areas here The all new skincare line is going to be a wonderful asset and contributor to our already existing health and wellness inventory We plan on to get these products booming in retail cosmetic locations Again, what I was talking about earlier about B2B being able to sell to other businesses And not just to the customers as well. So they've they've got growing revenue in birth sense there So very interesting stuff again the price 0.0088 again very very very volatile This could go to zero this company could go bust If it doesn't go their way this company could go to zero. This is incredibly risky However, there could be a potential for huge gains because it's high risk high reward So, you know, even if you was to put a small percentage of money of your portfolio on this And then it was to do really well. Well, you're going to see explosive gains Unbelievable gains. So but again, it could go to zero and you could lose everything So that is why it's important to only put a small percentage of your portfolio if you're looking at this stop Okay Now 0.0088 now I ain't currently in this stock because I'm looking to see how that amazon Stuff goes I'm looking to see how the new skincare range goes But I do see that this stock having a 50 to 100 swing up gain And you know, it's it's interesting, isn't it that that could happen And again, this could go further in the future But but I would say this is short-term play Getting get out wait till you get the profit done sitting by called for too long get your money And that's what I would do but again high risk high reward If you enjoyed this video then do subscribe to the channel if you knew for any latest penny stock explosive penny stock news And also we're going to cover clickstream again even more detail We're going to cover hey pal that innovative fantastic app that they're building that they're calling Is the facebook of language learning we're going to go into that this could be big and we're going to go into it Further I'm going to break down the instagram live. So do check out my next video Thanks for watching hit the subscribe button join the stock club. I'll see you later


This is an emergency alert from the SCP Foundation and the Global Occult Coalition, GOC, formerly secretive organizations dedicated to the protection of humanity. The SCP Foundation protects humanity by securing and containing anomalies, and the GOC protects humanity by destroying them. Anomaly is any object, and if your phenomenon, which violates natural law in some way, they are often hazardous to humans. The SCP Foundation and GOC are revealing themselves to alert the public of a giant serpent anomaly, which threatens humanity. This serpent can change its size from 0.2 to 900 km in length, and is supernaturally durable. It can move at 1200 km per hour on land. The serpent is referred to as SCP-6004, and it has other supernatural abilities, such as the alteration of weather. This includes global cooling, which causes increased rain and snowfall, glacial freezing, and severe thunderstorms. Within its life-side, SCP-6004 can cause severe thunderstorms, hurricanes, torrential rain, and extremely large waves. SCP-6004 causes plants to generate, where it alters weather conditions, and also has selective intangibility. It can pass through objects, and selectively swallow objects. It uses this ability to swallow organic life. It will then transform organic life within itself, before regurgitating it as a new species. These behaviors indicate that SCP-6004 has the primary goal of reversing human-induced climate change. This involves destroying human settlements, destroying sources of pollution, undoing global warming, and killing billions of humans. SCP-6004 is particularly aggressive towards political and corporate entities responsible for human-related pollution. To avoid this entity, you should stay away from all major sources of pollution, including industrial sites, and urban areas. These groups, which have been attacked by SCP-6004, and therefore are devoid of major sources of pollution, are the safest locations. The SCP Foundation and GOC are focusing on resettling humans in these areas, and providing solar and nuclear electricity options. The SCP Foundation and GOC are also exploring options for the termination of SCP-6004 alongside other groups. These groups include Marshal, Carter and Dark Limited, and the Church of the Broken God, organizations involved with anomalies. These termination options include key units, high-energy concentration orbital rail guns, and Thermaturgy. SCP-6004 will be terminated, and normal life will resume. We thank you all for your cooperation at this stressful time. Secure. Contain.


Hi everyone, Joe for jazzy's casebreak.com coming at you with 2022 Panini Immaculate Collegiate Football, one box, random number block, break number 15. That's how it works. Big thanks to this group right here for making it happen. There are the numbers right there. Let's roll it and randomize it. Six and a two, eight times, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight, easy. That chad down to Jordan. Six and a two, eight times, four, the numbers, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, and eight. Four down to two. Where would a color blast go in a random number block break? We would randomize it to one person. So if the color blast is for a random number block team, then we'll randomize that number block list in the name on top, we'll get it. Chad with four, Matthew with one, Daniel with five, Brandon with three, Dan with nine, Chad with eight, Brandon with zero, Chad with six, Daniel with seven, and Jordan with two. Let's order these numerically. And here's the one box break right here, number 15. Any trades? Usually, I'll just keep the video rolling. Generally there are trades on a number block break is not very common. Zero only gets redemptions, any and all redemptions, including one-of-one redemptions. And one still gets live one-of-ones. All right, trade window going once, trade window going twice, TWC, trade window closed. Let's move on. Random number blocks and random division breaks, you generally don't see a lot of trades happening there. All right, good luck everybody. There it is. I'll print out, hot off the presses. First one out of the gate is Travis Kelsey, 61 out of 75, that'll go to Matthew with the number one. All right, so if you're not familiar, really go by that digit right there. And a redemption, Brandon with the redemption spot, premium patch rookie autographs, Ruby, a Purdy hit, Brock Purdy. We have a 40 out of 49, Trayvon Walker, so I'll go to zero. I'm a man, I'm 40. Another one for Brandon. We got from Trayvon, we go to K-Von, Tivito, five out of 99. And it'll be for Daniel, and the number five, the Oregon guy, and the Oregon put a beating on UCLA over the weekend. Ooh, nice patch, nice auto. That's Ohio State's Garrett Wilson, Wilson, nine out of ten, Dan Green with the number nine. He does play for a green team now. And the last one, another nice one, another Ohio State receiver this time, it's Chris Olaves, four out of six.  Nice, and I'll go to Chad Wright and the number four. There you go, gang. I'm Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com, quick little break of 2022 Immaculate Collegiate Football. Keep an eye out for more on jaspyscasebreaks.com, and I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye-bye.