Hi, this is Alistair Jenks of the NoCillicast Apple Podcast, hosted at podfeat.com, a technology geek podcast with an ever so slight Apple bias. Today is Sunday, the 28th of January 2023, and this is show number 925. In this week's show, you'll hear my third and so far last instalment of my Streamdeck series, where I descend further into my madness, plus a contribution from Steven Getz on how he abandoned the Adobe subscription train and ended up on the Adobe subscription train. But first, Bruce from Tennessee joins us again to talk Finder and Terminal, and how to make them play well together. Hi, this is Bruce from Tennessee, also known as Use the Data, with a tip for working with the Finder and Terminal. The problem to be solved is that when working with files, I find some operations to be easier in the Finder, and others to be easier in the Terminal. And there are times where I need a Terminal window open to the same directory as my current Finder window. There are also times when working in an existing Terminal window, where I want to either have a Finder window open up in that same directory, or get my Terminal window into the same directory as an existing Finder window. As Allison reminded me, we've seen some ways to do part of this from the Finder. As explained in an October 2021 tiny tip, like in the show notes, the path bar in Finder is powerful, and you can use the option click on a folder in the path bar to open a Terminal window in that particular directory. So that's one way to solve one of the three cases. But how can I deal with the other two cases? The answer is a bit of shell script work that I'll describe in a minute, but let me first describe the results. So when I'm in a Terminal window on my Mac, I can simply type cdf short for change directory to Finder, and that Terminal session will now be in the same directory as the front most Finder window. Going the other way, I can type f here short for Finder here, and I get a new Finder window opened up in that same directory as my Terminal session. So if that's not useful for you, then feel free to fast forward to the next chapter in the podcast or move along to another blog entry. Now I've had this capability for a long time, but in Allison's call for some content, it occurred to me to share this with the Nosella castaways. The answers come from Brett Terpstra in a blog post that is just under a decade old now, and links to both Brett's site and that specific post. I was pretty sure that this had come from Brett and his site, like Allison's, has a great search feature, so finding that post wasn't that hard once I went to go look for it. However, several things have changed about macOS since 2013, and some of those changes affect what we need to do to make this work in a current version of macOS. When Brett wrote his article, macOS used something called bash as the default shell in the Terminal. Starting in 2019 with macOS Catalina 10.15, the default shell is now something called ZSH. For a large fraction of the things that the user might do in the Terminal, there's no difference. But if you want to customize your environment, the differences are significant. For more about bash, ZSH, and other shells, go all the way back to taming the Terminal Part 1 of N, blank in the show notes. Bart and Allison also provide a lot of information about customizing your Terminal environment in taming the Terminal Parts 13 and 14. Again, blanks in the show notes. And over in programming by Stealth, the Dynamic Duo have also provided great information on these configuration files, managing them, particularly in episodes 121 and 122. So if you've set up a new user account on a Mac at some point starting with macOS Catalina, you're most likely using ZSH. And Brett's instructions won't work for you. If you've carried forward a user account, either with migration assistant on a new Mac, or because Macs last a long time, and you're running a Mac that came out of the box with something before 10.15 Catalina, you're probably using bash. You can use Brett's instructions to set up the commands, although I go into a bit more detail in the posting. So how do you tell whether you're using the new ZSH or bash? There's a few different ways to do this. But the simple way that's worked every place I've tried it is to type echo dollar sign number zero in the terminal session followed by a return. The results will tell you if you're running ZSH or bash. If it says bash, just follow Brett's instructions and you're good. Although like this, I use a slightly different name than he does for one of the commands. If you're running ZSH, then you need to edit your .z profile file, rather than the .bash underscore profile file that Brett describes, and the incantations for my CDF commander are slightly different. Barton Allison described editing text files like this .bash underscore profile and .z profile from the terminal in taming the terminal part 11 of n, like in the show notes, and they use the nano editor. Following that guide while working in the terminal, you could type nano space tilde slash .bash underscore profile if you're running bash, or you could type nano space tilde slash .z profile if you're running ZSH. The tilde and slash are there to make sure that you're editing the file that's in your home directory, regardless of what directory you happen to be running at the moment. For bash, you can copy in the lines that I show in the show notes. They've used a slightly different abbreviation for open a finder window here than Brett did, and so there's a slight difference from his blog post. If you're running ZSH, then it's a slightly different set of lines, again shown in the show notes. If you're wondering where to put these lines in the file, just add them to the end, then save the file using ctrl o to quit, and then quit nano with ctrl x. Quit the terminal app, and then launch a new terminal window. The cdf and fhere command should now work for you. The way to create my fhere command is the same for the two shells, but the syntax to create that cdf command is a bit different. For those who are interested, that cdf command is invoking a bit of apple script to get the directory for the frontmost file finder window. It's also interesting to me as a command line aficionado as being an example of using all three types of quotes in one line. Bart and Allison go into the two of the three types of quotes in programming by stealth episode 143 of x, like in a shout-out. The third type of quote, the so-called back tick, which is above the tab key on my US keyboard, is there to tell the shell to execute this command and give me the results as a string. I hope you found this to be a useful tip, and my thanks to Brett Terpstra for figuring all of this out and posting it on the internet, and to Bart and Allison for their great work in both taming the terminal and programming by stealth. Peace, and may you find beauty in the world around you. Thanks for that contribution Bruce. I think I'm going to set up those commands for myself because when I develop scripts to solve a problem, I always end up using both finder and terminal, and it is certainly a pain point getting them both to be in the same place, particularly if I am using multiple directories. The only thing that's missing for me is something to remind me to use them, and now it's time for Stream Deck down the rabbit hole, part three. At the end of part two, I had a really useful set of buttons, many with nice button faces, and I was looking into how to get live information to display on a button. I knew there were plugins that did this for their specific functions, but I could not figure out how I could get my own information shown. I posted a question on the Mac power users forums and was pointed to an application called Better Touch Tool, or BTT for short. I'd looked at this software before, and even trialled it, but I didn't really see myself using custom gestures on my mouse or trackpad, which were its flagship feature. However, now I was being told a good handle Stream Deck buttons. I checked it out and was amazed at the feature set included in this software. At its core, BTT has many types of triggers and many types of actions, and you can wire these together in any way you can imagine. The triggers include the aforementioned custom gestures, but also keyboard shortcuts, tech snippets, Siri remotes, MIDI device controls, a BTT remote app on your phone, the MacBook Pro touch bar, and as of a recent version, the Stream Deck. Actions include, well, everything. There are 15 different categories with actions like sending a key press to a specific application, a requirement I mentioned in part 2. Performing a mouse click, hiding an application, running a script, opening a URL, resizing a window and putting the computer to sleep. In all, there are over 150 defined actions, and while many are very specific, like Press F19, some are very flexible, like run a script or send a key to an application. BTT addresses the Stream Deck in one of two ways, you can either install a native Stream Deck plugin, which BTT will then communicate with, or you can quit the Stream Deck software altogether and have BTT completely control the Stream Deck. I dipped my toes in the water with the plugin until I got an idea of what could be achieved, then very quickly went all in with full control. Because I made this leap fairly early in my Stream Deck journey, there may be things I mentioned here in the context of BTT, which are in fact possible with the native Stream Deck software. The BTT interface is fairly straightforward. Where I disliked the clunkiness of the Stream Deck software, BTT is a lot more obvious to me, though it does have some quirky bugs you will almost certainly have to work around. One is when deleting actions from a trigger. It doesn't seem to like deleting more than one at a time. I must get around to reporting that one. The application is hierarchical in the way it works. On the left is a list of applications. There is a special entry of all which contains triggers and actions that will apply regardless of the currently focused application. Then you can set up triggers that only appear when the named application is focused. A good example of the usefulness of this is having buttons on my Stream Deck to set finder tags, which only makes sense when finder is the focused application. On the other hand, my light controls make sense no matter which application has the focus. The next level is the trigger types. There are separate sections for Stream Deck, Touch Bar, Keyboard, Mouse etc. This makes a lot of sense as the different trigger types have quite different requirements. There is no need for example to have an icon for a keyboard shortcut like there is for a Stream Deck button. Next is the groups and top level triggers. I should preface here that I've mostly only worked with Stream Deck and Touch Bar triggers thus far. Groups on the Stream Deck manifest as a button which when pressed opens up a whole new set of buttons. I have all my light controls in a group for example. The first action to set up a Stream Deck button is to add a trigger which, broadly speaking, represents a single button. You then get to configure the button including some rules for when it will appear, such as based on modifier keys being held down or only on certain Stream Deck devices if you have more than one. You can also position the button explicitly or leave it to BTT to flow into an available spot on the device. The other aspect to buttons is their appearance. Delightfully, BTT has built-in support for SEF symbols so you can easily create decent looking buttons with very little work. You can also put regular text on them and there are controls for colors and sizing and positioning of the symbol or text and color of the background. My preference is to create my own image and this can be very simply dragged into the configuration. There is an oddity in how BTT handles custom button images. It seems like it wants a 96 pixel square image by default. However, I have conclusively proven that my actual Stream Deck buttons are 72 pixels square. I just create my buttons at 96 pixels and drag them in and it all seems to work. So it's not a problem as such unless you're trying to be pixel perfect. With basic configuration and appearance set, the real fun begins, adding the actions. Unlike Stream Deck's clunky multi-action action, BTT expects you to add multiple actions. My longest one to date has 26 actions. Adding actions is fairly straightforward, although another bug rears its head here. When you add the first action, the application jumps back to the top level of its hierarchy, so you do not immediately get to edit your action. If you're in a group, this is quite disconcerting as you're taken back out of the group. It's easy to just go back into the action, but there are a few paper cut bugs like this. As soon as you have configured any triggers and actions, they are live, though with groups it seems you have to exit the group in return to see new buttons or new imagery on existing buttons. So I have described a greatly expanded, if somewhat buggy version of the native Stream Deck software. Is that worth the price of BTT? I think so, because it has a much wider array of capabilities for the Stream Deck and even with the bugs. It's easier to build up complex action sequences and also to have your buttons adapt to the current environment. Then you can add in all the other capabilities of the software. I have a Touch Bar equipped MacBook Pro. I've never been against the Touch Bar, but neither had I really made much use of it, until I got BTT. Now I have a battery percentage and charge time indication, the latest readings from my personal weather station which opens my weather underground web page when tapped, a list of ejectable drives which ejects those drives when tapped, and an indicator of current Bluetooth status which toggles Bluetooth on or off when tapped. For me, the main thing BTT has enabled is total nerdery. In part 1 I described how I set the lights in my study for my nights on call. That process has changed a few times and currently does this. 1. Turn off the canvas light panels. 2. Set all of the room lights to bright green for 4 seconds. 3. Set all of the room lights to bright orange for 4 seconds. 4. Set all of the room lights to bright red for 4 seconds. 5. Drop the brightness of the room lights to 10%. 6. Set my max screen brightness to 10%. And 7. Set the stream deck brightness to 10%. This takes a total of 26 steps, mostly calling a shell script I developed as a wrapper for very long home control URLs. My current stream deck configurations include the lighting group with 5 buttons for room light control, 5 to set scenes on the canvas and 4 to set the canvas brightness to fixed levels including off, the Microsoft Teams group with 9 buttons, a laptop battery level indication. This button doesn't do anything but its appearance is set by a shell script so it shows me the current battery percentage. 7. Find a tag buttons, 6 colours and a clear, that appear only when Finder is focused. These run on Apple script which in turn calls a shell script. A group of 10 buttons that appear when DxO Photolab is focused which give access to commonly used tools. An additional group of 8 buttons for Photolab for its local adjustment mode. A button for the Citrix Viewer application that presses a special key to invoke the Windows Insert key which is not present on Mac keyboards. And a button for Terminal that enters the SSH command to my web server. That's 51 buttons in total, not counting the group buttons, using a variety of action types. I think I've only just begun. Next, Allison sneaks in again for a chat with Stephen Goetz about Stephen's journey through software for his photography. Well hey, I'd like to interrupt your regularly scheduled programming here. This is Allison and I want to do this to introduce the NoCillicast audience to one of my best friends I have never met, Stephen Goetz. Welcome to the show, Stephen. Hello. How are you today? I'm doing pretty good. So you have heard Stephen in a review or more than one that he has done over the years but this is the first time he and I have taken the time out to actually have a conversation. And if you've lived in the show for any length of time, you know that I get advice and help from Stephen all the time. He lives in Ontario, Canada, and I live in California, which is why we've never met. But in a very odd turn of events, my daughter Lindsey and her husband Nolan were vacationing near where Stephen lives so the three of them met up for a beer and I am still jealous that you got to meet them, Stephen. Yeah, that was seems like forever ago because it was the before times. Yeah, but hey, they got to meet you and I didn't, it doesn't seem fair. Well, in any case, I asked Stephen come on the show to talk about his ongoing personal struggles with his relationship with Adobe for photography. He's a pretty serious photography guy shooting with a big girl Canon DSLR. So it's a funny conversation, I think, because it has to do with trying to divorce himself from Adobe and yet coming back over and over again. So can you start at the beginning of the story? Like, why did you leave Adobe Lightroom? What is Adobe Lightroom? What is it used for? Start at the beginning of the story. So I guess I'll start out with Lightroom and Lightroom is a software for organizing and editing and tagging and sharing your digital photo. And it's been around for a very long time. I started out using iPhoto back in the G4 iMac day. And then I moved on to Aperture, which was a more pro tool. And I loved Aperture because it would organize my library and it had the really good editing tools. And it just works the way I work. But you can actually do like brush level editing, like you could brush in a burn or a color change and things, right? Yeah, and the tools worked how I liked, wanted them to work. When I moved the adjustments like the black and the highlights and shadows, they moved how I expected them to move, if that makes any sense. But Aperture abandoned that product. So I had to or Apple abandoned Aperture. So I had to find an alternative. So back then this is probably five years ago, maybe longer, I moved to Lightroom, Adobe Lightroom. And it was it was a tool that worked really well. It organized photos very well and tagging worked the way you would expect it to work. And the tools were at the time state-of-the-art tools for noise and editing and changing how you're raw processing. I mostly use Lightroom for almost entirely raw photos from my Canon DSLR and anything like from my iPhone, I just use photos, Apple photos for. So I keep those two lives separate. But so Lightroom didn't I wasn't as happy with Lightroom as I was with Aperture, but Aperture was dead. And I've always learned that once the product dies to move on from it, instead of trying to make instead of trying to make it work for me longer than it is intended to, if that makes sense. Right. Like Dan Moran said, quit it before it quits you. Yeah. Well, especially with Apple, because once they abandoned things, they they'll update the operating system and then you're like doing like hacks to try to just get to work with the newest version of the operating system. The other problem is if you do it late, I found that you end up being one of those people asking a question about how to migrate when everybody's forgotten how to migrate. Oh, exactly. And all the all the information you'll find is two years old. And they've changed how it works or because they don't need to worry about that because but so I moved on to Lightroom and Lightroom met my needs. But the the niggles with Lightroom for me are the subscription. They're a subscription model. So you have to pay monthly for Lightroom and pay for just Lightroom. So you can but it's actually it's more makes more sense to pay for they have packages for the creative cloud. And it goes all the way up from every single piece of software they make in one subscription price to to like individual software programs. But I used the photography bundle, which there's different versions of it that give you online storage, which I don't use. But the plan I have, you get what they call now Lightroom Classic. And you get Lightroom, which works, which is on the iPad, and on macOS and Windows and all the operating systems you could think of. I just use Lightroom Classic. I don't use what they would call Lightroom now. Interesting. So you have like you get Lightroom Classic and Lightroom. Correct. Yeah. And Lightroom works more. It's better. It's designed to use on the iPad. So it works differently than Lightroom Classic, which is more mouse-oriented, I guess. Oh, okay. Is that how I would describe it? Okay. So you don't you don't rent Photoshop? Oh, that does have Photoshop too. Yes. Oh, yeah. Okay. Sorry. I don't use it very often. I use I use affinity photo if I'm going that nitty gritty. But anyway, but yeah, it does So it's Lightroom, Lightroom Classic in Photoshop in a photography bundle. And it's like $12 Canadian a month, I think is what the subscription is right now. And if you buy at the right time, you get a deal on it and it can be cheaper or more expensive if it's not the right time. But so I I don't know. I don't remember exactly how I found a product, this company called DXO, which I've read their camera reviews for a very long time because they they take cameras and they like review the sensors and give them like a score. Wait a minute. That's that's not the same. Yeah, that's a DP review. No, DP review is a website, but the XO does lab testing. They're super pissed pixel PP people. Right. Exactly. So I've heard I've heard a DXO before. And they make software for they make software for a processing of raw photographs. And so Grimm Shepherd just talked to us about DXO something recently. And Alistair's talked about. I think what he uses is pure raw, I think. And that is that is what that is their engine for rendering raw files. Okay. And the software that I use is photo lab, which is by DXO. And that matches their rendering with library modules. So you can organize and edit your photos at the same time. Okay, so it's a Lightroom equivalent. Yeah, or or photos, Apple photos, the the Mac app, just think of it as a more just like aperture, a more pro version of that. Okay, so the main reason that you looked at DXO, sorry, photo lab was because you retired at paying the subscription for any other reason. I thought I always felt that Lightroom, the editing was a little clunky on it. And this was before they they've they've added a lot of features since I had switched away a couple of years ago. So we'll go back to that later. But I just the editing was this clunky feeling. It just felt the feel felt more like a Windows piece of software that I was writing on my Mac, because it's interesting. It's a multi platform, right? So I'm going to interrupt really quickly here, because we haven't necessarily defined for non photographers that that raw photos basically contain more information. They they, I'm not going to get into depth and that sort of thing, but they contain more information that you can do more editing to get higher dynamic range within your photos. And then you can compress them down into a JPEG, what you would standard see or like like HEIC sort of on the on the iPhone. But it's basically just more information, big files, you edit that you can do a lot more to edit them, bring out shadows, bring down brightness and and get a better picture. Just wanted to exactly interlude that. So I ran into DXO photo lab, it was full up for at the time. And it was probably around, I want to say it was the fall. It was in the fall, because I tried the trial photo lab for and I ended up finding photo lab five on sale and I purchased four left five, because it was cool. If you wait till it's on sale, you can get it like for 70 US dollars for and it's no subscription. So you can use it forever for that $70. So that was less than a year of like, so I thought, you know what, I'll try it for a year and see how I like it. Oh, that's a good idea. Okay, because I saw that the it makes nicer looking and renders the photos nicer, the more to me anyway, the with less work, if that makes sense. Like you have to do is a lot less fiddly to get the pictures to look the way you want or the way I like them. Anyway, everyone has their own preferences, but but it's got some it's got some advantages over Lightroom, like it's no subscription. They update it all the time. So they're doing bug fixes and adding features in the year, the after you've bought it. So a lot of software once you buy it, they don't update it, but photo lab is very good at tweaking things that don't work properly. So it looks like they do paid up upgrades pretty often though DSO photo lab six is out. It comes out about what's the year. Okay. And so you're you get bug fixes, but maybe you're tempted by the next one. Correct. Yes. So you might end up with the same cost that you did if you did Lightroom. Exactly right. Especially if you don't if you just if you don't wait for when that's on sale. Now they put it on sale quite often. But if you're like, at the wrong time, and then you don't know that do the sales, then you end up paying a lot more for it than you needed to. That's $139 for the essential edition right now. And you don't want the essential you want the other one because it's good grief. You want the higher the more expensive one. Yeah. But if you buy it on $219. Yeah. So if you buy it on sale though, you can get it that the you can get the the non the what I forget what they call it now, but you can get the full package for like 70 or $100 I think. So elite. Yeah. Elite. That's what they call it. Okay. So but it's killer feature to me is it's it has very, very good lens correction. And that comes from their camera testing. So they because they test every not just the camera body. They test the camera body with specific lenses. And then they I don't I don't know exactly the secret sauce to how they do it. But they have profiles for body and lens together. So this is correcting like for lens distortion on the edges. Yeah. And then it does it does sharpening in spots that it knows that lens is soft. Because some lenses have like they'll have a spot that at certain f stops and focal length are soft and certain spots in the frame. And it it will magically apply sharpening just the spots that it needs it. So it doesn't over sharpen the other spots. That's cool. It's very it's very smart. Their lens correction is very good. And it's again it's not just like oh it's because it's a it's an ADD or whatever it's right down to that lens and the camera together. So and it they also have very very good noise reduction. They call it deep prime. And they iterate it probably once a year or two I think it's like deep prime plus or something now. So is that a separate package you can buy standalone? I think they have a standalone tool because they they bought Nick. I don't know if you remember Nick. Nick plugins they bought Nick. And some of the Nick stuff shows up in there in in in photo lab. You just don't know that's where it's from. Okay. Like I recognize controls from the Nick plugins that I used to use with Lightroom like forever ago. But it's it's noise reduction is very good. I think it uses AI but everything uses AI eight hours. Stevens had me send him a couple of photos of my own where I know I've done everything I can to fix the noise and he sends it back and I've just been blown away. Those are that's that's pretty cool. So that's something to look at right now $129 for Pure Rod. Yeah. So Pure Rod gives you deep prime and the lens correction but without the organizing bit if that makes sense. Okay. And so you can use it with if you are comfortable with photos but aren't Apple photos but aren't happy with the editing tools which is I did try photos but I don't like I can't I can't edit with it I tried I gave it a really good shake is why buy software if I have if I'm already paying for software why not right but I just couldn't yeah sadly they don't support Apple Pro Raw and they're saying because Pro Raw is not a true raw format it's an Apple proprietary format so yeah it has something to do with having to use Apple's Apple's software to do it and that they don't have that built into there or something. Okay. Lightroom does it so I don't know about Adobe's also a lot bigger than DXO. Right. Okay. So you're happy now you're in your DXO photo lab you've got this great organizing tool you've got great software tools for editing your photos but yes then you went back. Yes. So I wasn't happy with the I will say DXO still has a lot of work with the organizing tools part of their tool. It just didn't it's really hard to explain it just didn't I just found myself always looking for photos when on Lightroom I could find them a lot easier even tagging tagging tagging tools are not great in DXO again they're getting better and they're a lot at six apparently is a lot better than five and five was a lot better than four but I just thought if I before I bought six I really thought I'm going to give Lightroom another chance because they have a trial so I thought try the trial I just find Lightroom's organization more natural to how I feel like you were coming home when you went back. Yeah I almost did yeah like it and again DXO is not bad and I would definitely recommend it if someone wanted to try something other than Lightroom but it's just it was again it was like coming home to how it worked and the same with the editing tool again DXO's tools are very good they just I don't know it's hard to it's just they work Lightroom works the way I like it to work and the way I would expect it to work and in the time I have available to sit down and work on my hobby Lightroom let me do more in less time. So are you nutty with your tagging the way Alastair is? No I'm not Alastair is massive architecture. I'm not sure anyone else on earth is as nutty as Alastair is about the tagging. I really hope this plays during Alastair's show so he can do the rebuttal. I just tag usually take like the event like like son's birthday or and the people in it and the place because my camera doesn't have a GPS on it so not all my photos are geotagged so it might be like Walt Disney World Jack Dumbo or something like that just so that if I'm looking for something like specific that I could find it just by typing out Magic Kingdom or Walt Disney World and I don't worry about I just I just do that with in photos I started doing a little bit of tagging but for just a very specific couple of categories but I I just create an album for the event and I name it with that and and by the way folders are not searchable just so you know in photos but album names are so I create folders by quarter by year and then within that I have albums and I just drag all the photos from you know Sienna's birthday go into into a folder or into an album and then of course most of my photos have geotagging but you can now in Apple Photos you can actually add the geotagging you can select a bunch of photos and say this was a Disney World yeah and I could do that in Lightroom just like don't I don't I should I should take more time and do it because you can do it when you import them but I don't I just import them maybe because I'm too impatient to look at them or something when you when you say tagging is that the same as keywords yes yeah yeah okay okay yeah because I knew that's where Alistair had is in fact they probably even use them call them keywords in here I just I just called egg I was getting confused of the difference between the two when you switched from Lightroom to DXO and back to Lightroom did it retain all of your keywords it does because DXO and Lightroom store a lot of their information in what's called a sidecar file so it'll be a little file of both of them leave your files on your on their drive like they're not in a package like photo okay like photos okay database no so it's it's like you can move pictures and stuff out in and out of them and so they store all the pet of the keywords and both of them will store even edits in sidecar files so you always have the original file yes and in fact I'm now running across um since I moved back to Lightroom and I stopped using Lightroom for a couple years their older files that the edits are still there even though I like don't even have that old library I like made a new library but it's kept it kept ratings and keywords and even the edits like I could go in and see though I I redo edits a lot but I could go in and see the old edit and I had that on that and tweak it a little bit because it's all in the sidecar file it's not in the library file that's pretty cool so this is this is kind of interesting what I enjoyed about listening to you in we text chat all the time we were actually looking at each other in video which we're pretty sure we may never have done before maybe once yeah maybe once but we text chat eight times a day I think um but what was funny was you it was almost like you felt dirty going back to doby well yeah because everyone like again at the subscription model I really like I like the subscription model and I don't like subscription model I like the subscription model because I it allows developers big ones and small ones to keep bringing updates to their software and know that they have a steady income to do that right like and there's a lot of like smaller people that have gone on the subscriptions and they explain why like one password for example is a good one um and it makes sense to me right because if that steady income allows makes it less of a risk to bring on staff and help you develop your software but I also like it's also can be depending on the software like for like for me and a lot of other people $13 a month is a lot of money to spend on their like their hobby right I guess what you've learned though by by your experimental um path was that it's a fair price because DxO is doing much of the same kind of work and it's the same price in the end because you have to you essentially have to buy it once a year I can yes and that's what I that's what I've come that's what I found because it was when I was looking into buying uh photo lab 6 I'm like what's the difference if I'm going to spend $100 a year on photo lab 6 or on photo lab where am I going to spend $120 a year on lightroom like $20 it's not a big difference over a whole year so right you know like so that's and that's what I'm like you know what I'll try lightroom again because like I don't think photo lab 6 progressed enough to be worth the for the tools I use anyway it's good to be worth the extra hundred dollars I guess one of the nice things is now you have a little bit of the best of both worlds because you have the subscription for lightroom where you're more comfortable with the library but if you ever want to go over and use the noise reduction tools in DxO you've still got DxO 5 well what's really nice is DxO does have a plugin for lightroom where you can round trip photo so I can in lightroom I can choose a photo let's say it's a photo that's noisy for example or how I use that a less good lens so it has like distortion or something I can send it to the DxO software and just use the lens correction and the noise reduction and then it will spit out a DNG file back into lightroom where I can do all the other editing I like to do but so that I get the really good noise reduction and lens correction from photo lab but then get the tools in the organization I like from lightroom. Oh that's great that's really cool well I don't think you should feel dirty going back to to lightroom it sounds like you did a good experiment you considered it and I will try really hard to not mock you for paying them. Wow yeah that I appreciate that. Mocking is basically the the central core of our relationship so that's a big statement I'm making there and it goes both ways right tell the people it goes both ways sometimes yeah it's not all right well for that I'm gonna wind you up if people want to talk to you online now what would the best way to do that be? Probably just my twitter at goatland I'm also on the Slack it's uh I don't remember what my name on the Slack is. I looked it up your Stephen Getz. Stephen Getz on the Slack there you go look at that yeah he's pretty active in there and like all the other lovely no-cellic castaways so it's a lot of fun well thanks for coming on it was it was a treat for me to get to see you and talk to you in real life well as real life as nerds believe in anyway. Thanks for having me on. Thank you for that Stephen and Allison I would just like to make a few clarifications. DxO's two products share some DNA but serve very different purposes pure raw is a raw converter it does lens and camera corrections and noise reduction these two features are DxO's secret source pure raw is a drag and drop application raw files in and processed images and dng tiff or jpeg format out there are very few controls over the processing done photo lab is a full featured application like lightroom classic or aperture it has the same raw conversion engine as pure raw but you get more control over how it works then there are the library and usual processing features as Stephen described it is worth reiterating that the more expensive elite edition is the one you want because the essential edition does not have the best noise reduction technology amongst other things also apple pro raw isn't really raw it is synthesized from multiple lenses and already converted from the sensor data into a full rgb image it does contain a lot more information than the he ic files but DxO's secret source is decoding raw sensor data so even if it supported apple pro raw it would just be like using lightroom when it comes to sharpness and noise reduction my journey in photo processing software has so far been nothing lightroom aperture lightroom again luminar photo lab and most recently photo lab and lightroom keywords are lightroom's superpower Stephen called me nuts for my keyword prowess and who am I to disagree as an example of why I use lightroom for keywords I noted the stats of a recent session I had 293 photos to which I applied 64 unique keywords an average of nine per image and I did it in only 20 minutes including defining three new keywords it is worth noting that lightroom classic can be used as a photo library manager including keyword management for free if you have any questions about this hit me up in the pod feet slack well that's going to wind things up for this week if you like the content I created here please consider checking out my photography and writing at zkarj.me I'm an active participant in the pod feet slack usually adding fun content to the delete me channel and you can also follow me on twitter at zkarj did you know you can email allison at allison at pod feet dot com anytime you like if you have a question or suggestion just send it on over you can follow her on twitter at at pod feet and you can find her on master on at at pod feet at chaos dot social if you want to join in the conversation you can join our slack community at pod feet dot com slash slack where you can talk to me and all of the other lovely no silica aster ways remember everything good starts with pod feet dot com you can support the show at pod feet dot com slash patreon or with a one-time donation at pod feet dot com slash paypal and if you want to join in the fun of the live show you're going to have to wait until sunday february 5th when you can head on over to pod feet dot com slash live at 5 p.m pacific time and join the friendly and enthusiastic no silica aster ways thanks for listening and stay subscribed


We are teaching our children how not to live. Dumping experiences on a child, dumping objects on a child, filling their rooms up with all kinds of strange things. So they are so confused with all that matter around that they don't know anymore what is up and what is down and what are they and where do they begin and end? Presence of the parents better than presence. I was thinking a lot about how to educate in a way, raise children that are more connected, just simply grow naturally. I have a nephew and I'm trying to do it with him. The question is if to speak with a child like how we speak now, like that he's an instrument, the truth. Definitely and absolutely. The more you raise that child to have the confidence that there is an antar guru, there is an antar atman and that it is not alone and that it can always go there with a question it has. The stronger that child is, the more centered, the more secure and the less egoistic. But it's also important to teach children to bend, to try to import those approaches from the subcontinent of not just the subcontinent, to bend, to touch the feet of the parents for blessings or that the parents on the birthdays of the children touch the children's feet, ask for forgiveness for any mistake they have done in the year prior. This is inculcating surrender in your children. It's inculcating the ability to bend. Otherwise, where do they learn how to bend? Where do they learn humility? How? It's a takeover of highness in the whole world to the point where now the declaration is I am the soul.  I am the soul. I am. No, you're not. You are the body in surrender to the soul, an instrument of the soul but you can't know that because you're not learning how to bend. That's where the child has to be taught humility.  It has to be given as few toys as possible, not as many. As few external experiences as possible and as many internal experiences as possible.  If you take a child out skiing three times a year as this big experience, after that, it needs that experience to feel alive. I'm giving skiing as an example. It's not just skiing, then it's what else? Riding, horse riding. Riding on an animal and riding it, okay. It's skiing, it's then horse riding, then it's going to the Europa park, it's going to Disneyland, it's going this and that and that and that. And finally, it's life is made up of experiences external to itself. And people say, well, if I don't expose my child to all of that, then this child will be stunted culturally. No, it won't. It won't. Powerful culturally because it'll be one of the few children that is there with itself, it's capable of just being with itself.  They're just there sitting on a bench or something in the village, just sort of there. It's called living.  So they're so confused with all that matter around that they don't know anymore what is up and what is down and what are they and where do they begin and end. Presence of the parents better than presence. No sugar. Talk to them about the divine within and how they bend to its impulse. Teach them how to distinguish between the loud voice of the ego and the quiet truth within themselves. Show them that they have access to the truth, that they will know what is the right thing to do without being constantly hounded about it. That's how it's done. Of course, you have to keep on hounding them about that, but then better to hound them about that than about many other things. And you do succeed with children. We've seen that. They're quite, kind of quite okay. Look at that exhibit B over there. He was, how old were you when your parents started practicing vocal practicing these things? Five? Around five. So he's quite okay. I mean, I think.  He goes to school. Now he's finished school and he has girlfriends and sorry, I'm telling the truths about your life. But it's already been spoken about, so I have the right to say that. It's just a normal kid, but he's centered. He knows something. There is some level of confidence there about living and life. And his parents, of course, didn't really listen to what I said, so that's another story. We are observing this with children. No sugar. Firstly, no sugar. If you can't do anything else, just don't give them sugar. Just take it out of the house. Close down sugar forever. That will already change a lot. And talk to them about the divine within, the antar guru. Or you can call it in your language, the antar teacher, inner teacher, if you want. When the child is small, starting to react to his name and to understand that he is a kind of separate unity, so actually the name also helps him in a way to get this identity that he's the name. Is it possible to start from this age already that he will not identify... You understand what I mean? To use a name with a child is not generally done in ancient cultures. They figured out that if you use the name too fast and too often with a child, that it hardens that identity. It's hard as an identity. Yes, it's better to start that process slowly.  Sometimes they used to wait six months to one year to do that. Now they have some new imported ideas that it has to be done faster, but generally it was done like that. And then they even changed the name after a while if they felt it was not the right name. Thank you very much.


Are you able to explain the situation between Palestine and Israel because I'm confused? Am I able to explain it? In short form, man, where do we begin? You can't start on October 7th. You can't start with the first Intifada in 2000. In short, in 1947, 1948, there's a declaration that gave split up Palestine, historical Palestine, which was under the British Empire, into two different parts. Fifty-four percent or something went to Israel to establish an Israeli-Jewish state, and 46% or so was to establish a Palestinian state for the indigenous population. The people that took over that region, the Zionists, because we're Zionists, with the course, the Western world, because of genocide of World War II, we deserve a land. And the way they sold it, they sold it as land for people without a land. No, what was it? Basically, they sold it as if their mantras are low IQ, to say the least. They sold it as, oh, there was nobody living there, right? But the promise that they made to the Western world was that when they went there, they would give equal rights to everyone. Everyone would have equal rights. Well, they went in there, they did the great Nakba, they expelled hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their home, they killed a shitload of people, genocide, ethnic cleansing in the region. And they created 100,000s of refugees that flooded into Jordan, Syria, Egypt, and into the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, and into Lebanon. They set up a serious base in Lebanon. And this was unacceptable to the rest of the Middle East, especially the Arab nations. They said, hey, listen, you can't just, all of a sudden, the British Empire comes there and gives us a land that's occupied by indigenous population to just Jews, and most of them just European Jews, many of them not even Jews to begin with. There were Zionists, there were sects of Jews, European Jews that, surprisingly, had their origin in the Ukraine, right? That all of a sudden, come in there, expelled an indigenous population, mass refugees into the neighboring nations, destabilizing those regions, right? For a while, they tried to come to some kind of agreement that, hey, listen, everybody should have equal rights, the Zionists can't, you can't ethnic the cleansing region.  Who are these people that are just kicking us out of our villages and homes and taking over our lands and killing our people, right? And then there was a war in 1967, right? Which was sort of a, you can look into it, right? And then the Western world steps in and says, oh, we're going to put the United States and the UK in charge of bringing peace to the region. We're neutral parties, we're not taking sides, the United States not taking sides, they're not taking sides. And we're going to try to bring peace to the Middle East by creating a two-state solution, right? Israel and Palestine, right? And then they take over. Zionists get more power, mainly through the 1970s, through the neocons and through the Reagan administration, Bush Jr., the Dave Camp, the cores and all this jazz and these, you know, promise, Palestine, their state. Meanwhile, in the 1980s, Israel goes into Lebanon, bombs, a shit out of Beirut because the PLO, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, was based in Beirut. And they said, okay, the PLO can't be there.  Because they want the PLO out of Beirut. And the PLO ends up going to Tunisia, right? And then they start funding the extremists and stuff, divide and conquer and whatnot. The whole, the United States is a neutral country that is going to try to help bring peace to the Middle East and create a two-state solution. The veil has been lifted and everyone knows now that the United States was not impartial. There were 100% Zionists as Joe Biden said. He's a Zionist, as Blinken says, a Zionist.  And in the mid-2000s, or 2000, there was an interfaith that was uprising in Palestine and saying, look, man, we can't live in a apartheid state because it had become an apartheid state, right? So Israel was functioning as a apartheid state for a number of decades in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, 90s, full-on apartheid state, right? Just like South Africa. And then there was an uprising with interfaith of one and two in the 2000s, right? And in the mid-2000s, the Gazans were allowed to have elections and they elected Hamas, not Hamas origin being. Israel, Zionists was funding Hamas because they wanted to separate, they wanted to break apart the one Palestinian government, right? From the West Bank in Gaza, they figured they could divide and conquer, right? So there was elections in Gaza. They elected Hamas, which is really a resistance movement. People in the West are being lied to that it's a fanatical, genocidal religious point. You could be non-religious and join Hamas as long as you resist occupation and apartheid, right? That's in their doctrine, right? So in the mid-2000s, they have elections in Gaza Strip. Hamas gets elected. Hillary Clinton comes along and says, well, we shouldn't have allowed free elections in Gaza because they elected the wrong people. Whoops, democracy, what democracy, right? So as soon as that happens, Israel, right? And by the way, before that, they occupied Gaza, they brutalized Palestinians, they murdered them, they raped them, they organ harvested them. They were taking Palestinians into prison and harvesting their organs and selling them. Israel has been one of the largest black market organ, human organ suppliers to the world for decades, right? Whose organs? Palestinian organs, right? But we won't go down that rabbit hole, right? So as soon as Hamas gets elected in the Gaza Strip, Israel says democracy, no democracy, right? US says no democracy, Western world says no democracy. Gaza goes under complete blockade. Israel controls this water, electricity, food. Palestinians, fishermen are not allowed to go beyond a certain amount of distance off the coast to fish for food, right? It reached a point where Israel did the calculations of the mathematics and said, oh, there's this many Palestinians living in this region and you could survive on this many calories per year. So they allowed a certain amount of calories per person to go into Gaza. I.E., Gaza was turned into a concentration camp, right? Concentration camp. And this continued. IDF sniping people. They tried multiple peaceful means, Palestinians, to try to break this blockade and finally get the land, the nation that were promised in 1948, right? Decades ago, right? What are some of the things they tried to do? They did peaceful march, Israeli snipers, sniped them, killed healthcare workers, nurses, paramedics, children, shot them in the knees, shot them in the head, annihilated them, right? Peaceful march, right? They started the BDS movements, boy called divestment sanctions movement, which is a peaceful movement saying to the world, look, if you don't support Israeli apartheid, that Israel is holding Palestinian hostage in the Gaza Strip as a concentration camp. If you don't support what Israel is doing, if you don't support an apartheid nation, just like people didn't support apartheid Africa, Africa don't buy Israeli products that are made in occupied territory, BDS movement, boy called divestment sanctions movement. What happened? The Western world called that violence. Get that, that's huge, right? So Palestinians peacefully protested, got them shot, got them killed.  What happened? Western governments came along and said, oh, anybody that supports BDS movement is supporting violence. United States went as far as saying that any individual, any corporation, any national or international corporation that wants to do business, that wants to work for the United States government or its states must sign a document saying they don't support BDS movement. You follow? That includes teachers. So teachers in the United States, in most states, as far as I know, if they wanted to teach in elementary school and high school, in an education center, they had to sign a document saying they don't support boycott divestment sanctions. Which is crazy. Just wrap your head around that, right? So Palestinians tried everything, peaceful, to try to break this blockade, free themselves from a concentration camp, and finally get what the world promised them, which was a nation, right? Under UN resolutions, everything should go back to the 1967 border and Palestinians who were made refugees should have the right of return, right? Well, it wasn't going anywhere, right? The Western world was helping Israel to continue to commit genocide. Then we have October 7th. What happens then? Oh, the Western world is actually arming the genocidal regime of Israel to ethnically cleanse genocide of whole people in Gaza, and they're gonna go after the West Bank next. They're gonna go after Lebanon next, Syria, Egypt, Sinai, they want the region of Saudi Arabia. They want a greater Israel. So where we are right now is, the veil has been lifted for the majority of the world, global majority, because pre-October 7th, there were still a lot of people that didn't know this history and still thought that Israel was, you know, the most idea was the moral of arming the world. I don't know what reality that's from, right? Western corporate propaganda, right? And now that the global majority, including people in the Western world, are seeing what Israel's doing, what the West is doing in support of Israel committing genocide, the veil has been lifted, and we realize who they are, which is the monsters they have been for decades, for decades. We just brushed it under a rug saying, well, World War II genocide Holocaust bad, let the chosen people do what they want to other people.   That's the quick version. If you want a longer version, what you want to do is Norman Finkelstein. Let me see if I have a command for this. Gaza, nope, palace time, nope. If someone reminds me in our gilded server, on our gilded server, I'll put a command together on Twitch for Gaza and Palestine to provide information to Norman Finkelstein and Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate as to what's going on in that region and give a little context and history, okay? And again, take everything I say with a grain of salt, but majority of what I said is pretty much fact and very few people deny it.


I never worked for Russia and you know that answer better than anybody. I never worked for Russia. No, I am not a Russian spy. I think this is a completely unhinged conspiracy theory for which there is absolutely no basis in fact. This is because ultimately she knows that she can't control me. That I stand for, I stand against everything that she represents. Welcome back everyone. I've been super busy the last few days and haven't put out a lot of content, but I'm back and I'm ready to get some. The election of Donald Trump broke a lot of people and sent them plunging into orange man madness. We see them every day in the media and I think you know who they are. These people along with their Democrat Party allies actually created a narrative for multiple years that our president is a Russian asset. Just think about that the next time you hear these chicken littles fear mongering about dangers to our democracy. 18 reasons Trump could be a Russian asset. The worst case scenario for Trump-Russia collusion that Donald Trump has been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987. He knows how to play his asset and Donald Trump either wittingly or unwittingly is an asset of the Russian government. I believe this was the greatest intelligence operation of our times and it ended up putting a Russian asset in the White House. As Democrats typically do, Hillary Clinton is now parroting this media attack on Trump and using it against a fellow female Democrat, Tulsi Gabbard. And for that matter, she's actually accused Jill Stein of the exact same thing. We'll get right back to this media meltdown, but first let me just take a quick moment to thank this video's sponsor, Ribtea.com. Guys, I know that we all need to constantly replace our t-shirts and underwear because we buy them cheap in bulk and at department stores. I'm here today to implore you to consider stepping up to a higher quality, immensely more comfortable choice.  If you need new t-shirts and underwear, and I think we all know that you do, treat yourself and try something that will not only feel amazing and improve your mood, but will also outlast anything that you bought from a department store. Head on over to Ribtea.com for slash drone tech and make sure that you use the promo code DRONETECH to get 20% off most items. If you would like me to give your channel or your website a shout out, simply make a purchase at Ribtea.com for slash drone tech and send me the proof of purchase. Thank you. But an aide confirms that that's who she was talking about when she made this stunning claim that the Russians had already hit on a way to meddle in the 2020 election, much in the same way they meddled in her election in 2016. First off, her election?  Hillary Clinton lost the election and at no time was it her election. It just goes to show you the lens that these political operatives pretending to be journalists see the world in. Apparently she saw the previous election as merely a process to install Hillary Clinton as president. Second, I'm so tired of hearing this broad generalization of Russian meddling used to cover for Hillary's election loss. She was low energy. Her rallies attracted a small fraction of what the Trump rallies were attracting. Unlike the massive crowd at the Trump rally, only 600 people showed up for Hillary Clinton's rally last night in Iowa. She skipped key states that she needed and allowed Trump to put the extra work in that eventually paid off. What did the Russians do? They bought some Facebook ads and they organized some rallies for and against Trump. In fact, the anti-Trump rallies that they organized were touted and promoted by CNN. And we see Morgan Radford is at Union Square in New York City. That is where the anti-Trump protest is just about to kick off. I want to show you some of the signs and the posters they're holding up here. You can see one here that said knowledge, Trump's hate, protect our public schools, teachers against Trump. You see people that are really saying that this is the time for them to come together. Protesters coming together frustrated, angry and all directed at the president-elect. This is a lot of different groups of people who have come together with no necessarily official leader. What else did the Russians do? Well, they supposedly hacked the DNC servers and let the American people know about corruption in the DNC and media. Apparently, both parties don't think that the American people should have known about any of that. Now compare that to the millions of illegal foreign nationals that are in this country driving policy and in some cases even voting in our elections. Which has a bigger impact? I mean, if you watch some of these Democrat rallies, you're going to see Mexican flags waving in the crowds. Clinton said, quote, they're grooming her to be the third party candidate. She's the favorite of the Russians. They have a bunch of sites and bots and other ways of supporting her so far.  Everybody has websites and bots. Are we to believe that every other country out there doesn't have a favorite candidate and isn't doing what little they can to show support for that candidate? What are we supposed to do exactly? Sensor all support for American candidates that comes from outside the US?  They're just setting it up so that anytime a Republican wins, they could just say the Russians did it. And when a Democrat wins, they can give the all clear. And now I guess we have to include Democrats who aren't far left enough. My guess is that as these people's mental health continues to plummet, we're going to see more and more people accused of being Russians. Even I get constantly accused of being a Russian bot on Twitter and Facebook. Not all media members are on board with this, though, as we saw with the self-titled Communist Revolutionary Van Jones. If you're concerned about disinformation, if you're concerned, what the Russians do is they spread disinformation and they get us divided against each other. That is what just happened. Just throw out some information, disinformation, smear somebody. She is Hillary Clinton. And yet this is exactly what you all did to President Trump. There is a very high likelihood, even according to Christopher Steele, that the dossier was actually Russian disinformation. Think about that for a second. Hillary Clinton actually paid a foreign agent to compile dirt on President Trump during an election from Russian and Ukrainian intelligence sources. And it was most likely disinformation. If that's the case, then the media and Democrats have played right into the Russians' hands and sown the exact division that Putin wanted all along. It's only now that it's being used against fellow Democrats that they suddenly see a problem with it. Why am I not surprised? And speaking of 100% pure unfiltered insanity, Brian Stelter didn't have much to say about the recent Project Veritas video exposing what we all knew about CNN. Their coverage of the president is being directed by a hate-filled leftist with a personal vendetta against Trump. Hilariously, Stelter just dismissed the video. Well, this must be a good question then. You know what it is. It's the Project Veritas guys with their undercover expose of CNN, in which they have audio of your boss. The actual spokesman for CNN, Matt Dornick, said on Twitter, he tweeted out one word. He said, yawn. I just think there's no there there to these claims. There's no claims being promoted by O'Keeffe. He's presenting video footage of CNN employees spilling the beans about corruption coming from the head of CNN. Oh yeah, of course that's nothing, but the years and years of claiming Russian collusion and that Trump is a Russian agent, that's completely legitimate. For God's sakes, we have actual video of Joe Biden bragging about getting a prosecutor fired by withholding congressionally approved funds. But that's just a conspiracy theory to be ignored.  I'm going to dive deeper into this interview with Stelter, so keep an eye open for that. If you enjoy my content and you want to support this channel, please consider subscribing to me on Patreon or SubscribeStar. With YouTube demonetizing everything I upload, my subscribers on these platforms and my sponsors are the only thing keeping this channel going. You can also send me a donation on PayPal, which I'll use for camera equipment, software licenses, and trips to protest so I can do more interviews. Thanks to you all and please keep coming back.


My name is André Guant. I'm the chair of John Turin Cancer Center and a division chief of the LEMFOMA program, as well as a physician and chief of oncology for Huck and Sack Medicine Health. John Turin Cancer Center, rapidly growing reputation in just 20-30 years to the national level, is a testimony to the fact that we have very highly sub-specialized care across 16 divisions, each one of them led by a national or international leader. We have a robust clinical science platform with a strong phase one program and first in humans that gives patients new options when it's needed. Not only we have a highly specialized care, but very high volume, so every physician sees a lot of patients on a very specific topic, so they have a great insight, but they also collaborate on a daily basis and exchange across the groups to make sure that we give the best advice to a patient and also with surgeon and other specialty requires for the multidisciplinary cancer care that is required nowadays. What matters the most is to really have a culture of really caring for the patient beyond the words and I think this is something that is, I would say, really part of our culture and this is a really important part of the healing process. I think I am convinced that actually bedside matters and the connection you have with your patient matters in the outcome. So our patients, we try to deliver to each of our patients who come here, who are very pleased to see the expertise that they have access to and they don't need to go anywhere else and they can stay, of course, with the premier cancer program in New Jersey.


What's good y'all? Chris from jasseskatespricks.com. We are good to go on this two fillers down And we are ready to rock on a one box break of 2019 Panini national triceps football number four We have our dice first dice and our list so 12 straight up spots from Jared down to Alex that last spot mojo And then our two fillers Prism 41 and prism 42 all done and let's grab those teams real quick Cardinals down to commanders Cardinals Very good one to get here obviously calamari rookie cards Let's see if we can get one here Cardinals down to commanders this dice roll will be for both. Thanks again for getting this break any shut up spots or fillers and good luck Three and four seven times seven times for both one two three four five Six and last one seven seven times So Chad Cromwell down to Nicholas Stoffel and seven times for our teams. Good luck one two three four five six and last one seven seven times Carolina Panthers down to the Cincinnati Bengals and Kenny Pickett has thrown a pick Nice, it's still a little readout here of our of our players here Chad Cromwell grabs the Panthers Jared O'Malley with the Lions and Raiders Chad right with the Browns Chad Coleman with the Giants Niko with the Falcons a Chad Cromwell from that filler gets the arrows on a Cardinals nice Chad right with the Steelers and Niners Niko Martin with the Packers Alex Ernest with the Broncos Stephen P with the Ravens Chad Cromwell with the Commanders and Rams Chad right with the Colts Alan Matsui with the Titans Flawed with the Cowboys Chad with Chad Cromwell with the Eagles Mike you should more grab the bill is Matthew Nelson with the Dolphins Chad Cromwell with the Bears Jeremy Reza with the Texans Anthony Venturino with the Patriots Alan Matsui with the Jacks Alex Churnes gets the Chiefs in that last spot mojo Jeremy Reza gets the Bucks Niko Martin with the Jets Chad Cromwell with the Vikings Alan with the Saints Chad with the Chargers Anthony Venturino with the Seahawks and Nicholas Stoffel with the Bengals. All right We'll do a little trade check if there is there is anybody rocking and rolling here We will let you know when we come back. We'll take a pause when we do we'll get right-breaking on the last box of the case of 2019 NT football you're back All right, we are back Texans were up for trade but no biters. So we're just gonna get this printed and get this box ripped Let's do it Last box of this case 2019 NT footballing. It's gonna be the last one at the moment to a wall with a crazy Kind of acrobatic catch there Yeah, I have to do that. That's gonna be on me. Here we go ram team for Chad with the Cardinals all the way down To chat with the man that's grand opening grand closing There we go One box right here should be a fun one. Thanks again for getting this filled out y'all Any straight-up spots any fillers?  That's gonna go to Alex turn us that last spot in mojo low three out of five Bobby Wagner on The parallel Seattle Seahawks going to Anthony Ventureno Three out of five on the Bobby Wagner parallel Get to the hits first up Central materials Hunter Henry for the Los Angeles Chargers charge is gonna go to Chad Tucker Patch right there Franchise treasures 21 of 25 three-color patch For Alvin Kamara and the new Orleans Saints gonna go to Alan Matsui player warn and use on the JJ Arcia white side 35 out of 99 tremendous treasures patch for the Eagles and Chad Cromwell, you know the defense is not the problem for this team despite the score. I promise you It's just the offense. It's just so Nice NFL gear Kyla Murray Andy Isabella Christian Kirk 61 out of 99 for Chad Cromwell And the Arizona Cardinals parents players worn and used first auto 7 out of 35 Brandon Cook signatures for the Los Angeles Rams LA Rams going to Chad Cromwell How about a one-of-one patch and auto Paris Campbell for the Indianapolis Colts? That's gonna go to Chad right one of one beautiful patch right there Player warn and use Paris Campbell one of one Nice congrats two more Our old school guy Earl Campbell on the signatures 12 of 25 Houston Oilers another Tennessee Titans. That's gonna go to Alan Matsui and Last card. Thanks again for getting this break filled out y'all good luck NFL gear Patriots addition Damian Harris To relic and auto 17 out of 25 the Pats going to Anthony Benarino from that prism 42 filler in here's 12 out of 27 and 25 patch and on nice call it a wrap Thanks again y'all we'll be back with more on the site right now just with case base calm


So, welcome back to this lecture on digital communication using GNU radio. My name is Kumar Appaya and I belong to the department of electrical engineering at IIT Bombay. So, in this lecture we are going to continue our look at demodulation with a signal space picture in mind. So, if you remember in the last lecture we were talking about how you can obtain a set of orthonormal basis vectors, basis signals from a set of S1, S2 up through Sm, Sm minus 1 rather S0, S1 up to Sm minus 1 and you need to obtain a set of orthonormal basis signals. To do this we need to use the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process which takes the first signal, finds the component of the second signal that is not along the first signal to get a new signal, finds the component of the third signal that is not along the first two and repeats at the end you get a basis, you get a basis set. So, let us actually do this for a specific example. So, in this particular example you have four signals I have not used the S0, S1 notation in this case S1 of t, S2 of t, S3 of t, S4 of t, S1 of t is essentially 1 from 0 to 2 seconds, S2 of t is 1 from minus 1 to 1 second, S3 of t is 2 from 0 to 1 second and S4 of t is minus 1 from 0, minus 1 to 0, 1 from 0 to 1 and minus 1 to 2. So, let us now see how you can perform the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization for this. I will make a remark the resulting orthonormal basis depends on which signals you choose in which order we are going to choose them in this order 1, 2, 3, 4. If you choose another order you will get a different basis set that is also equally correct and there is no problem the basis set that you get from Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization is not unique alright. So, let us actually perform Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization on these signals for reference I have put them over here S1 of t, S2 of t, S3 of t, S4 of t all we need to know is where they are non-zero. So, our basically times of interest are between minus 1 second and 2 seconds, the first signal is non-zero between 0 and 2, the second is non-zero between minus 1 and 1, third is 2 between 0 and 1, the fourth is like minus 1 in the first interval, 1 in the second interval, minus 1 in the third interval. Let us now carefully perform Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization on this signal set alright. So, now what we are going to do is we are going to first take our psi 1, let us make it blue so that you know it is nicer ok, let me rewrite it over here. So, I am going to write psi 1 of t directly and psi 1 of t let me just get rid of this because it is confusing yes. So, psi 1 of t is going to be S1 of t by norm S1, this is very easy because I am just going to choose my first signal as my first orthogonal vector or first basis element, but just scale it to make it unit energy. So, if you now look at inner product like in like norm of S1 that is very easy if you just calculate integral S1 square of t I am dealing with real signals minus infinity to infinity. It is very evident that you can see that it is over here it is 1 from 0 to 2 so this integral is going to be 2. Therefore, my psi 1 of t if I draw it is very simple between 0 to 2 it is it is like this is actually norm S1 square. So, if you substitute norm S1 over here it is 1 upon root 2 so this ampere will be 1 upon root 2. So, we have our psi 1, the psi 1 is just a scaled version of S1 it is just S1 except that it is being scaled to have unit energy so that is your psi 1. So, now the next task is to obtain psi 2 to obtain psi 2 we will first go for an intermediate function called phi 1 that essentially find your that essentially finds you a signal that is orthogonal to psi 1 ok, but has the rest of S2 in it. So, let us do that. So, I am going to define phi 2 of t as S2 of t minus inner product S2 comma psi 1 times psi 1 of t. So, this is actually very interesting the first part says phi 2 is S2, but I want to take out that part of S2 that is along psi 1. So, now needless to say if you find inner product phi 2 comma psi 1 that is equal to inner product of S2 comma psi 1 minus inner product S2 psi 1 remains because it is a number inner product psi 1 psi 1, but what is inner product psi 1 psi 1? Inner product psi 1 psi 1 is 1 because we chose it in that manner it is S1 by S1 of t by norm S1. So, this goes away. So, if you now subtract you get this equal to 0. In other words phi 2 is a signal that is specifically designed to be orthogonal to psi 1 and have the remaining part of S2 in it. Let me issue a warning over here. If S2 of t is actually just a scaled version of S1 of t then you will get phi 2 to be 0 which is completely fine in which case you can just ignore it and move on to the next signal because phi 2 is just a scaled version of you know phi 2 you know you are just a scaled version of S1. So, if your S2 is just a scaled version of S1 everything is going to be captured over here and you are essentially going to get 0. So, that is something you have to keep in mind. I am going to keep this part over here. So, let us now move further. I want to find phi 2. So, phi 2 is S2 of t minus S2 times psi 1 times psi 1 of t. So, what is inner product S2 psi 1? So, psi 1 of t is this psi 2 of you know S2 of t is this you can see that psi 1 is non-zero only from 0 to 2 while over here this is between minus 1 to 1 and the only overlapping area is the part between 0 and 1. So, if you now perform the integral S2 of t psi 1 of t dt only the part between 0 and 1 is active and that part if you integrate you are going to get just 1 upon root 2. So, you are just going to get 1 upon root 2 that is because if you multiply psi 1 and S2 you are only going to get this particular part scaled by 1 by root 2 and if you integrate you get 1 by root 2. So, this means that your phi 2 of t is S2 of t minus psi 1 of t by root 2 and let us actually use a pictorial representation and draw it. So, it is S2 of t minus psi 1 of t times 1 by root 2. So, S2 of t looks like this I am not drawing the x axis marks. So, it is all the time and this is actually S2 of t let us subtract psi 1 upon root 2 psi 1 is over here it is 1 upon root 2 everywhere if I write it in this way it is 0, 1, 2 amplitude is half. So, if I subtract what do I get I am just going to draw the resulting signal it is 1 over here and over here over here the value is 1 and the value is here I am going to subtract it I will get half and finally, in the third part the value over here is 0 value over here is half if I subtract I get minus half. So, minus 1 half minus half. So, this is my phi 2 of t, but remember phi 2 is just a signal that has the part of S2 that is orthogonal to psi 1, but it is not unit norm. So, to get my psi 2 which is the actual basis vector element I need to just normalize this so I need to just do psi 2 of t is equal to phi 2 of t by norm phi 2. So, if you want to do this integral of phi 2 square it is very easy to quickly do it amplitude here is 1. So, and this is 1 in length. So, it is 1 square similarly plus half square plus half square. So, it is 1 square plus half square plus half square. So, let me just write it down integral phi 2 square of t is equal to 1 plus 1 by 4 plus 1 by 4 that is equal to 3 by 2. So, this phi 2 is actually root of 3 by 2. So, I am just going to get this as root of 2 upon 3 this to even the root times phi 2 of t. So, let us now draw our psi 2 in a very neat way psi 2 of t is essentially phi 2 which is over here except that is scaled by root of 2 upon 3. So, let us draw this and then it is half of this half of this I am deliberately not drawing the x axis points it is minus 1 0 1 2 this is minus sorry this is not minus this is a root of 2 by 3 ok. This part is half of root of 2 by 3 which you can evaluate it will be 1 by root 6 why it is half times root of 2 by 3 that is half it is like half times root of 2 by 3 is root of 2 upon 12 that is 1 by root 6 this is minus 1 by root 6. If you want to now just do a sanity check this should in the square of psi 2 should integrate to 1 if you square it over here you get 2 thirds plus 1 6th plus 1 6th at those you get 1 that is the first point second psi 2 should be orthogonal to psi 1 psi 1 is essentially the same thing between 0 and 2 psi 2 is actually anti-portal between 0 and 2. So, the overlap will be 0. So, psi 2 is an orthogonal signal orthonormal signal I mean psi 2 is a unit energy signal and orthogonal to psi 1. So, psi 2 is the second element of our basis vector fine. So, we have done psi 1 and psi 2 let us look at psi 3. So, for psi 3 we need to find psi 3 s 3 is 2 between 0 and 1. So, 2 between 0 and 1 fine. So, how do we do this now 2 between 0 and 1 let me just draw this this is my s 3 of t 0 1 value is 2 my psi 2 is here and maybe I will just try to get psi 1 ok. So, and I am just going to copy this and let us paste it over here ok. So, this is my psi 1 this is my psi 2 and we now have this s 3. So, I am going to write phi 3 first phi 3 of t is again for Gram-Schmidt remember it is s 3 without the components along psi 1 and psi 2. So, it is s 3 of t minus inner product s 3 comma psi 1 times psi 1 of t minus inner product s 3 psi 2 times psi 2 of t. So, I am not going to do this, but if you take inner product of phi 3 with psi 1 that is going to be inner product s 3 psi 1 minus inner product s 3 psi 1 and it will become 1 and anyway psi 2 psi 1 inner product is 0. So, phi 3 is orthogonal to psi 1 psi 1 and similarly phi 3 will be orthogonal to psi 2 which is what you want because you want a signal which is has that part of s 3 that is not in psi 1 and not captured in psi 2 as well. So, I am not going to do that I am now just going to find phi 3 and then make it unit norm so, unit energy so, that I get the third component. So, now let us do this. So, I have these signals over here let us now carefully just find inner product s 3 psi 1 inner product s 3 psi 2. So, psi 1 is here inner product s 3 comma psi 1 I am just going to look at the pictures and do this for you. So, if you look at inner product of s 3 and psi 1 this is 2 between 0 and 1 this is 1 upon root 2 between 0 and 1. So, the common part is only 0 and 1 and you are just going to get 2 multiplied by 1 upon root 2. So, that is going to be I think root 2 because you are multiplying between 0 and 1 the value is 2 here the value is 1 upon root 2 here. So, root 2 is the result inner product s 3 psi 2 is also easy. So, psi 2 is over here and it is 1 upon root 6 between 0 and 1 which is the area that matters. If you now perform the inner product I mean if you perform the multiplication in integration you know between 0 and 1 2 upon root 6 will be the result which is root of 4 upon 6 which is root of 2 by 3. Now your task is to subtract these out with the appropriate scaling that is inner product s 3 psi 1 times psi 1 inner product s 3 psi 2 times psi 2 ok. So, let us do this. So, inner product s 3 psi 1 s 3 psi 1 times psi 1 is going to be root 2 times psi 1 that is going to be you have psi 1 over here if it is root 2 times it is actually very easy from 0 to 2 it is 1. Similarly, root of 2 upon 3 times psi 2 psi 2 is also very easy root of 2 upon 3 times psi 2 is going to be if you now multiply this part by 2 upon 3 you get 2 by 3. If you multiply 1 upon root 6 by 2 by 3 you are going to get you have to multiply root 2 by 3 1 upon root 6 into root of 2 by 3 will give you root of 2 upon 18 root of 1 upon it is 1 third you get 1 third and then here you get minus 1 third why because it is minus 1 upon root 6 here and deliberately not writing the x axis, but we really want this is minus 1 0 1 2 minus 1 0 1 2. Now you need to add these and subtract it from s 3. So, let us actually do this if I add these I am going to get let us carefully add them in this part between minus 1 and 0 there is no contribution from the first signal.  So, you get 1 plus 1 third which is 4 by 3 in the third part there is 1 minus 1 by 3. So, you get 2 by 3 this is going to be the combination of these 2. Now you have to subtract this from your s 2 of t which is this. Now it is very easy to subtract because s 2 of t affects only the part between 0 and 1 and if you now subtract you have this 2 by 3 becomes negative this 2 by 3 becomes negative and this 4 by 3 is going to get subtracted from 2. So, you are going to get 5 3 of t to be minus 2 by 3 and over here you will get minus 2 by 3 and over here the amplitude is going to be 2 minus 4 by 3 2 minus 4 by 3 is just 6 minus 4 upon 3 you are just going to get 2 upon 3 this is your 5 3. So, let us yeah. So, now if this is your 5 3 which is minus 2 by 3 minus 2 by 3 you know it is like minus 2 by 3 2 by 3 minus 2 by 3 have a look at your s 4 this is actually minus 1 1 1 and your 5 3 looks a lot like s 3 and now if you want to scale this to make it unit energy this part is if you do 5 3 square this part is going to give you an integration contribution of I think 4 upon 9 this will be 4 upon 9 4 upon 9. So, you are essentially going to get 12 upon 9 12 upon 9 is going to be I think 4 by 3 4 by 3. So, you have to multiply by root 3 upon 2. So, you are going to get psi 3 of t as ok. So, 4 by 4 by 9 4 by 4 by 9 12 by 9. So, 3 by yeah 12 by 9 ok. So, if you take the square root ok this is actually going to be 4 by 3 you will have to multiply by root 3 by 2. So, let us multiply by root 3 by 2. So, this part is going to be minus 2 by 3 multiply by root 3 by 2. So, 2 by 3 multiply by root 3 by 2 this is going to give you root 3 this is going to get it is 1 upon root 3 yes. So, let us now use a eraser and cancel this rough area out yes. So, you are going to get minus 1 by root 3 root 3 minus 1 by root 3 that makes complete sense because if you now integrate psi 3 square you get 1 third plus 1 third plus 1 third that works out to 1. Now, the question is do we have to worry about psi 4. Now, in the case of psi 4 what happens is something which is very interesting it is actually just a scaled version of psi 3. So, if you take inner product of s 3 sorry s 4 comma psi 3 and if you subtract that out from s 4 you will get 0 which means s 4 is essentially a linear combination of these 3 waveforms. So, in this case you do not really you mean you do not need another you know you do not need another basis vector basis signal psi 1 psi 2 psi 3 capture this 4 signal system. So, that is something which is very very obvious and you know interesting. So, this is a full Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process that we have performed for these signals, but there is just some there is just some extension which I want to talk about the one thing is in this particular case we were dealing with waveforms, but we could have got away with just dealing with vectors why the reason is because you have these signals, but they have a nice property in that they vary only at let us say 0 they vary only between they do not vary between minus 1 and 0 they do not vary between 0 and 1 they do not vary between 1 and 2 their values vary only at 0 and at 1. So, you can actually treat these as 3 dimensional vectors. So, for example, I can as well write this as 0 1 1 why because this is a 0 1 1 this I can write as 1 1 0 this I can write as here at 0 2 0. So, I am going to write the 0 2 0 and I am going to write this as minus 1 0 sorry minus 1 1 minus 1 we just use an eraser to correct it minus 1 0 1. So, if I now look at these vectors and if I perform Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization on these vectors as opposed to signals I will get the same set of vectors that is if you now look at phi 1 psi 1 I will actually get 0 1 upon root 2 1 upon root 2. If you use psi 2 if you look at psi 2 you are going to get root of 2 upon 3 1 upon root 6 minus 1 upon root 6 and if you look at psi 3 you are going to get minus 1 by root 3 root 3 minus 1 by root 3 you will get the same result if you use vectors also. There is one final remark that I wish to make first of all Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization is necessary when you have these kinds of signals, but of course in this case these were rectangular signals the same trick of vectorizing would work even if you had sync or some other waveforms if you can identify it carefully, but there is an interesting observation that you can make in order to not have to do all this work what is it? The signal varies only between minus 1 0 0 1 1 2. So, why do I need any other special basis vectors? Let me give you a basis set of basis vectors without having to do any such work by the way let us just try to copy this. So, let me just take this particular part ok. So, I am just going to ok. So, let me just talk about it below ok. So, now if you now look at the same set of signals that is 0 2 sorry this is 1 0 2 minus 1 1 the third one is yeah 2 0 and the fourth one is ok minus 1 1 ok. Here is a trick which we will play we will just write we will just write 3 basis signals directly what is the observation these signals do not vary between minus 1 and 0 they do not vary between 0 and 1 between 0 and 2 we just need to construct 3 set signals here are 3 set signals. So, this is another basis vector psi 1 of t is 1 between minus 1 and 0 psi 2 of t is 1 between 0 and 1 psi 3 of t is 1 between 1 and 2. So, this was a construction where you essentially just did not have to do gram print orthogonal orthogonalization and you were able to infer psi 1 psi 2 psi 3 almost by observation because if you look at this particular signal construction these are time orthogonal meaning they have no overlap in time which means that they are orthogonal and they are 1 in amplitude for 1 second duration which automatically means that they are going to be unit energy. So, in this particular basis we have the same vectors which we talked about this case will be 0 1 1 this will be 1 1 0 let me actually write them in different colors just so that you know things will be much easier to infer. So, let us choose something like a red color.  So, sometimes by observation you are able to infer a basis without having to do Gram-Schmidt as well or you can do a hybrid you can guess some of them and not get others and things like that. So, while the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization process is a very systematic way of finding orthonormal basis vectors there are some situations where you can find basis vectors using just observation or other intuition. The basis vectors you obtain in this manner are going to be equivalent in every other way in the sense that your representation of these vectors is going to be different. For example, if you look at this particular basis vector in this basis vector for example, if you take psi 1 your original vector is going to be original vector had 1. So, it is going to be root 2 times root 2 0 0 that is going to be the representation of the original s 1. Notice that the energy or the sum square of this is 2 over here also the sum square is 2. Similarly, let us look at the second vector where is your psi 2 yeah it is a little more complicated for the psi 2 case where is the psi 2 yeah. So, your psi 2 is root 2 by 3 1 by root 6 minus 1 by root 6 now in this case this part has to cancel and you know you have to essentially you have to scale it appropriately, but if you now represent the vector in the same manner you will again find that the energy is the same. So, even though you are using a different basis all your computations and results are the same and this leads to a very important conclusion. The basis vectors themselves do not really matter because you can actually use different basis vectors depending on your convenience as long as you keep the basis vectors orthonormal their performance and all other design aspects are going to be the same. So, the conclusion from this exercise where we did this Granfinite Orthogonalization is that the first the basis vectors are the number of basis vector signals the number of basis signals psi 1 psi 2 is always going to be less than or equal to the number of signals in this case you had 4 signals, but only 3 orthonormal signals that captured this. The second thing is that these orthonormal basis are not unique you can come up with any other one for example, even if you did Gram-Schmidt Orthogonalization using this signal as the first then you will actually get 1 0 0 you know you will get the you know you will get the 1 between 0 and 1 as the first basis vector and then if you choose this one you will get the second and in fact you will get the basis vector that we wrote over here without having to do much work using Gram-Schmidt as well. So just keep these things in mind when you perform Gram-Schmidt Orthogonalization and wherever possible you can infer the orthogonal basis using your intuition or use a combination of Gram-Schmidt and your intuition whichever works best. Thank you.