How's everyone doing? I figured you were all partying late last night, so I thought I'd make this easy. I reduced my slides down. I have four slides. Static types. We can't use them well. We don't usually need them, and they can harm more than they help. Thank you. I didn't think you would fall for that. So, by way of illustration, let's make a delicious and quick American snack. Take the bread out of the bread box. Don't do this. Supposedly this was because I don't have a good battery, but I believe I do. Okay, we'll do this again. Take the bread out of the bread box. Oh, take the peanut butter and the jelly out of the refrigerator. All right, I'm not going to be tied to this podium. Let's see. Spread the peanut butter on the one slice of the toast. Spread the jam on the other side of the toast. And put the two together. You have a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Now, this is a recipe and a set of directions that almost any five-year-old could follow. But since we're talking about static types, LTR is what's coming for you. LTR is what smart-ass math and computer science professors put at the bottom of really hard problems and even harder problem. So, if someone wants to come up and give me a purely functional peanut butter and jelly sandwich implementation with extra credit for static types, we can do that. So, you might be thinking, what does making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich have to do with programming? I don't know when my computer changed to Spanish, but my talk has a hundred percent more meme slides. Oh, that's not working either. All right. So, what we looked at is very underspecified, right? I didn't say where to put the bread. I didn't say where to put the peanut butter and jelly. What if we had put the bread on the floor, right? This is not typically something that recipes ever have to address, but it is underspecified when you think about what we have to tell a computer to do. It's also imperative. I told you each step. You can't go and rearrange like putting the pieces of bread together and then putting the peanut butter and jelly on them. It's also repetitive. We didn't say, let A equal bread, take A from there, put this on A, right? It's not working either. It's also not abstract. I know someone in the audience is thinking, what if I wanted not just a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but ham and Swiss, right? So, we need to abstract this. Okay. So, this is double advancing, which is not going to work. I think it was because the computer had two brains there for a second. Okay. So, actually, not really joking here, right? So, we have this imperative thing. We hear a lot of stuff about how Ruby is imperative, and there's this whole other domain over here where we have functional languages, but could someone actually offer me a way to describe making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich in a functional manner? It's a difficult thing to even think about. So, what does that even mean? So, let's talk about this thing called programming for a moment. In the industry of programming, we tend to make poorly designed programming languages that make unreasonably broad assertions about their suitability. We say that they're a general purpose, and then we use these, and it requires a tremendous effort and cost to change them, sometimes just changing from one version of a single program to another. Then we build them and we fail a lot. I was doing some research, 70% of projects reported in this one study had had a failure in the previous 12 months, 70%. Another study looked, and there was 17% of companies said that they had a failure that could actually threaten the livelihood of the company itself. And it's not just because we're not using the right processes. There was another study. This was actually in Dr. Dobb's journal. 73% were using agile reporting project success, compared to like 67% using more traditional, which is something probably closer to waterfall. So even this, you know, agile process is not giving us significantly more success over something that we hear at almost every conference, how waterfall is not the way to be doing software. This is where it gets really interesting. We typically don't learn from failure, and this is not just programmers. There was a study of doctors who do coronary artery bypass surgery, right? And what they found was that doctors whose patients died got worse over time. They didn't get better. They also found that doctors who watched other doctors performing these operations successfully did not get better over time. There was one group of doctors who got better over time. They were the doctors who watched other physicians perform the operation and have some failure, some problem. What the researchers learned from this, they even have a name for it. It's called attribution theory. What they learned from this is that we tend to view ourselves, things that happen and things that we do in a light that is most favorable to ourselves. So for the doctors whose patients died, it was because the patient was unstable. They were rushed. The handoff to ICU didn't go well. The doctors blamed things outside of them, so they had no reason to improve. The doctors who watched other people fail attributed that failure to the doctors, not to the external events. And so they said, hmm, I don't want to make that failure. I better learn something from this. That's really interesting in a contemplative way. We learn from others' failures, not necessarily our own. Now there's a way that we can actually combat that. If we do not allow that part of ourselves that gets defensive when someone suggests that we're not doing something right, if we can step back from that ego for a moment and listen and look at what someone is saying we're not doing well, we can actually learn from it. So experts in many fields have that ability. They've developed the ability to step back, evaluate the feedback. Maybe it's good, maybe it's not. I think that programming is actually a behavioral science. I know we hear a lot about math, but what we're talking about are people communicating and trying to tell either a computer to do something or communicate with someone else about how they're telling the computer to do something. And this is not something that math is just perfect for. So if it's a behavioral science, then we have things to think about like perception. How do the things that we see affect what we're actually thinking? And interestingly, do we even see everything that we think we do? So this is a very interesting study that was performed back in the 1970s. It's a grainy video of two teams, three people on each team.  And each team is passing a basketball between their team members. So they're dribbling and passing.  Now what's really interesting about this is this. What's different about this? Halfway through the video, a woman carrying a red umbrella walks through the middle of the two of the activity, stops for a minute and then continues walking offstage. When this is originally conducted, almost eight out of ten people did not see the woman. They were told to focus on a task, count how many times the basketball was passed by the white team. And so they were focusing on the white team members and eight out of ten people didn't see this. Two out of ten people saw this woman walk through the middle of the video. If that doesn't give you a pause for a moment to think about the things that we see every day and may not even see them at all, even though they're right in front of us. But when we're programming, we're not watching videos, right? So what's that got to do with programming? We are thinking when we're writing programs, I hope. So let's do a little test. Say someone has given you a slide or a, say someone has a deck of cards and they've laid out four cards and they tell you that there is a single rule about this card deck. There are numbers on one side and there are colors on the other side. So single-digit numbers, which are even and odd. And on the other side, there's either brown or red. How many cards do you need to flip over to prove or disprove the rule that in this deck even numbers have a red back? So even numbers have a red back. How many people think you need to just turn over the three? The red card? The eight? The brown? Okay. So however many people here, like four people raised their hand, how many people have no idea? So this is a simple logic problem. If the number is even, then the back is red. Is that equivalent to if the back is red, then the number is even? How about if it's not even, then it's not red? How about if it's not red, then it's not even? So in order to do this, we actually have to turn over two cards. If we turn over the eight and we see red, we've only validated the rule, but brown is not red. So if we turn over brown, right, this one, and we see not even, then it's correct, otherwise we've disproved that rule. When this study was conducted, 90% of people got it wrong. Now be honest, raise your hand if you knew the right answer. Take a look around. Keep your hands up if you knew the right answer. Of course you did. This is the guy who gave the talk about types. Propositions as types. This is what we learned about yesterday, the Curry-Howard correspondence. Propositions as types. Logic as types. We can't use logic very well. One does not simply use static types. But wait, we're programmers, right? We can learn this. We've been here before. We didn't know what we were doing when we started out. Turns out there's another study done of professional trained statisticians looking at whether or not with all their training and all the things that they did actually understand if they had a better intuitive sense of statistical relationships. Any guesses? Turns out not so much. As humans we're really bad at this. There's a book Thinking Fast and Slow that I recommend that you check out. There's actually a whole section on my slides that is references. There's about eight or nine different books that I think are really, really interesting. So professional programmers. This guy, Connor McBride, very, very interesting paper. We heard about Idris yesterday. Idris uses dependent types. It's a fascinating field of study. He wrote this paper, How to Keep Your Neighbors in Order, looking at how to create a correct by construction binary tree. This is isomorphic to a total ordering on an array, meaning that if it's correct by construction, you can't insert an element into the array out of order. You can't insert into the tree out of order. This paper, he takes us through different ways that he attempted to implement this. This is a professional researcher in dependent types. And it took him a really long time to make one algorithm. I'm not saying types aren't good. I'm just questioning whether or not they are the best thing for us. This idea of correct by construction also requires that we actually know what we're doing because math isn't right. Math is simply a tool. You can start with a wrong premise and with perfect deduction reach a perfectly logical conclusion that's completely wrong. So correct by construction is not some silver bullet that is just gonna save us when we start writing programs. So this is why I say that we can't use types well. This is one of my arguments for not relying on types or seeing them as something that's gonna save us. In thinking about this though and in thinking about all the different conversations I've had for a long time with different people about different sorts of programming languages and especially about types because Ruby gets a lot of shit about being dynamically typed. It's my favorite part of the language. So I started thinking about this and I came up with what I think are eight different areas that we misunderstand what we're doing with programming. And this is sort of inspired by the fallacies of distributed programming which I've also been like studying and thinking about recently. So this is where this kind of comes from. The first one that I see happen all the time is this idea that scale is the same. We love to look at a problem and say oh I did this right once so if I do it right n times I can solve basically any problem. So if I need one mailbox I just keep adding as many mailboxes. If I need to ship one container I just keep adding containers. So the idea of scale is not that we think everything is the same size right. It's the idea behind will it scale. If I do one then can I do n successfully. And I don't think that all problems can actually be approached like this. There's this idea of a qualitative difference versus a quantitative difference. A qualitative difference means that two things maybe not may not be comparable qualitatively. By the way none of these things are particularly I'm not going to be able to prove any of these things. These are things that come from experience that I see as making mistakes when we reason about different systems based on these fallacies. So this this idea of scale everything's at the same scale. In code this is like how many lines of code do we have. We don't ask questions like what's the biggest program you can write in Ruby or in Haskell. But we do often refer to programs as you know 10,000 lines of code a million lines of code but we don't necessarily see that there's any divisions between these. A colleague of mine Chad Slaughter has talked to me about this idea that at some point around 2,000 lines of code there's a barrier. He's taught people to program and they they just start adding things to a script until it gets to about 2,000 lines of code and then they hit a wall. They can't go any further unless they can pull a different level of abstraction out. At that point they need to understand say how polymorphism works so they can start using classes effectively. He thinks that there's another you know of that qualitative difference somewhere around 20,000 lines of code 2 million lines of code maybe 20 million lines of code places where people lose the ability to actually keep all the concepts in their mind and they fail to make progress on the problem anymore. We also have this idea kind of that everything is about the same risk. When we go down to the grocery store to pick up say bread and stuff to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich we don't suit up in our racing suit. It's very possible that you could get killed in the car accident just driving to the store but we don't actually perceive that risk so we don't you know we don't treat it the same as getting on a track going 200 miles an hour right. So the idea that there's different risks in the type of program that we're doing. If you are launching rockets I hope you're not using Ruby. You might not even want to use Haskell if you're launching rockets. It's really really important to be right and to have timing and all that stuff down but on a web server if you're sending a form to somebody that's not critical does it have to be perfect? What's the risk if it fails? Related to this idea of scale there's also this idea of cost. We just do this little formula right. We t-shirt size thing so that's about a medium that's a large that's going to take six points our velocity is whatever we assume when we do that that everything is about the same if we if we average it all out we have some n times the number of lines of code that's how much money it's going to cost. There's nowhere in the code where we can see something that says well by the way this section right here this thing cost a million dollars to make. We have this idea that things are all about the same granularity in fact we say things like everything is an object or everything is a function when you have food that's all about the same consistency or granularity you have something like mashed potatoes or puree or baby food mush right we need texture and you know chewy and crunchy and these sort of things everything the same ends up being very difficult for us to work with. Imagine if I said this is a book where everything is a word right we have paragraphs sentences sections chapters we don't have everything at the same level everything in ruby is an object by the way where's the call stack how do I put my hands on that where's the scope then we have this idea of the same abstraction and man it's hard to find a picture for an abstraction so I don't have a picture the idea of the same abstraction is that what we're dealing with can be dealt with with the same sorts of things we have classes and methods so we make more and more classes and methods because that's all we really have to deal with our problem so we sort of see things as if they're just a bunch of classes with methods and then this idea that things are just sort of the same like time is really maybe it's a parameter but in Newtonian mechanics right you can just take t and run it forwards and run it backwards and the system will just you know go just fine t doesn't really matter when we talk about compiling we talk about doing this thing that's at a point in time I know when I compile my program that it'll run as if that point in time is the most important thing I'm not saying it might not be the most important but it's a question at the moment that I compile my program does it actually know everything that it needs to function correctly I compile it ship it off it's like we're stuck in the shrink wrap a shrink wrapped box era of building software got a package it all up there's a big cost to cutting all those CDs putting them in the packages putting them on trucks sending them to the stores everything has to be right right so when I compile I want my program to run but we have the cloud now I could deploy between the time that you load one page and hit fill out your form and hit next you could be running on a different server that I've just sent out there I might be able to get on that machine and change something and make your page refresh right we it's they're computers we can do all kinds of stuff but we pick this thing this point in time and we say when I compile it's supposed to work and this is the biggest idea the idea that somehow these systems all have the same sort of order here order as opposed to disorder once upon a time science thought that all phenomenon could be explained sort of with Newtonian mechanics which as I mentioned t is a parameter you put in t as a parameter and you add you know one to t and you see the system evolve this way and you subtract one and the system goes back this way turns out the universe doesn't work like that everyone know what this is it's the index of all Julia sets it's an amazing thing the manobrot set it has tremendous detail and and complexity where you're seeing here is a colorizing of how quickly a point either diverges to infinity or where it's black it doesn't diverge so things that are black are in the set everything on the boundary this fractal boundary diverge at different rates the rates at which they diverge yields this tremendously complex and I think beautiful illustration of how amazing our world is it comes from this simple equation take a point which is c a complex number start at zero with z equal to zero z plus z squared so zero squared plus c becomes z and you just keep doing this if that converges it's in the set if it diverges the rate at which it diverges is what's used to colorize that picture the study of chaos started sometime middle last last century and there's a there's a fascinating book that's almost like 30 years old now called chaos highly recommend it in the study of of of chaos they found that systems do not necessarily have simple order there's this idea that things can be sensitive to their initial conditions we can't just put t in at zero shift the system over here right with the same inputs and have it have the same output the same behavior it turns out that it can be very sensitive to the initial conditions you change them just slightly and instead of being about the same over time it wildly diverges this is called the butterfly effect the idea that a butterfly flapping its wings here in barcelona could cause a hurricane in new york city but this is not necessarily random these are deterministic things this illustration blew my mind when i first saw it these points are being filled in at random but in the end they showed this picture so if this is a system that we're interacting with where we need to interact with it over time at this point we don't know much about the system at this point we can see it very clearly if we have to interact with the system over time in order to even know what it is is compiling once and then shipping it off necessarily going to work what if this is describing a process not just what that thing is solving but the entire process so the really interesting thing about chaos theory the study of chaos theory is they started looking at how they started looking at processes instead of state so becoming instead of just being this idea of order i think is very very important there's this thing called the kinefin framework it's in my references that looks at these different types of order and i think the different types of programs that we write need to understand the different types of order that we're dealing with we can't just assume that everything is newtonian dynamics and things go backward and forward just just as easily this is called a Lorentz attractor and it's another illustration of a dynamic system in this case almost periodic almost periodic you can see that it looks like it has a periodic behavior it looks like it goes around and around but it doesn't it never repeats also you can see that there's sort of two loci that these things are going around it flips between these states and the point at which it flips is not necessarily deterministic it can be very close nope not going to go into that one it's going to go into that so this is where i say that i think types can do more harm than help if we mistake that we're dealing with a simple system when we're actually dealing with a complex or chaotic system we can have really serious failure in the kinefin framework they talk about the fact that catastrophic system failure occurs on the boundaries between simple and complex systems because you think you're dealing with a simple system you turn one little mob here and the whole system falls down and the final fallacy that i see is that programming languages are general purpose the idea that we don't really need to tell you what this is good for you can kind of do anything that you want i think this is actually a terrible idea for many reasons you know that i've just explained in the in the one before for order all right so we've got two or three one left nil nil the most hated thing in ruby nil no method error nil i hate nil if only we could not have nil i wish i had options you know that every single method can return nil yeah it could every single method so you've got an option type on every single method option something or nil what is nil though it's an object it's not nil it's not that dude's billion-dollar mistake it's an object empty string empty hash zero we even have to see now in functional programming we love this thing this is an essential part of a category an identity function give the function x and you get x back compose some functions compose them with nil you should get nil back nil is the thing that turns any function into an identity function for nil let me fix this problem you have with nil not trolling it's all you need if nil bubbles all the way through your system and ends up as a blank string in your template you can have some logic in your template but you don't need to worry about it everywhere else ruby's got a lot of problems this inability to operate with nil is one of them but it's this easy to fix nil's just something that if i give it you give it back to me we don't need static types to deal with nil and no method errors in ruby there is an idea though that often goes with static types functions do we have functions in ruby yes we do you saw them they require a lot of boilerplate you got to make this fake module not fake but you got to make this module and you got to have this extra thing that does some stuff makes them private but all you really want is just a function so we should just have functions gary Bernhardt he's got this company called distrial software he has this really great talk called boundaries and a screencast called functional core imperative shell and the point that he makes is that a lot of the problems that we deal with have these very well defined sort of functional parts where we operate on values we don't mutate a bunch of state and then around that where we interact with the world we have some objects and objects have to deal with the messiness of the world which it turns out is a really good thing this is a fantastic paper the power of interoperability why objects are inevitable it basically says that if you don't have if your language doesn't have objects you'll create them and the reason that you'll create them is because objects are fantastic for dealing with interoperability that part of there can change i don't have to we can still communicate the thing about objects that's really important is the messages messages are the core of objects not types not even methods necessarily because when you say you know cat dot meow that meow could come from a modula included a super class it can come from a singleton method on that thing it could come from method missing might be nil but the basic idea is that you're sending a message and that message is the important thing so if we have functions and then we have objects i think that we'll have a much more powerful system and if we have functions here's where you can put your types in a place where we can understand something very well not at the place where we need a lot of interoperability but something really well defined and we can use these we can we can basically do this in the existing vm rubinius we can add instructions that can deal with these types on functions while the rest of ruby the objects can continue being useful for interoperability functions are great for things like cli's a lot of people use go now to write command line interfaces they're also fantastic for parsing which is one of the basic things that we do parsing is really really well understood so we could write json parsers and yaml parsers xml parsers if we had functions we could make http parsers we could possibly even make garbage collectors which if you know that rubinius has this sort of idea of ruby written in ruby if we didn't have to write the vm and c or c plus plus but we could use functions in ruby to do that then we really could have ruby in ruby all the way down so this idea of general purpose i think this is the worst idea that we have in programming and what i'd like to do is propose that we fix that the way that we fix that is by dealing with languages in many different forms for the specific task that we're trying to accomplish what if a grammar was a first class thing for our system parsing expression grammars in particular have this fantastic quality called composition which we all love from functional programming languages so if i have a grammar in my language to parse a date and then you want to make some sub language so you want to make a yaml parser and parse dates out of it you can just compose date from the language and the rest of your grammar and you can build up different levels of abstraction with different languages so i haven't talked much about rubinius rubinius is the project that i work on it's an implementation of ruby that is really really easy to test out if you're using mri add this to your gem file for things like ruby debug that use internals to mri run bundle update and then your app should boot that's what we expect if it doesn't let us know that's all you need to do to try it out we have two one compatibility uh converging on that keyword arguments are on master they'll be released hopefully next week we have one eight seven compatibility on a separate line for all those apps that are still hanging around because it's too hard to migrate them or maybe it costs too much or any other reason um i work at inova thanks to inova for making it possible for me to be here today um there are like a bunch of apps that we're migrating rubinius works it's in production your app is different than the apps we're working on so your app might not work but if it doesn't we'll fix it so it's my hope that you know in the near future i'll have 50 or 100 more people contributing to rubinius but the point i want to make here is that even if we had a hundred developers that could work on rubinius that's a fraction of everybody here i really really strongly believe this open source is not a spectator sport the rubinius core the bytecode compiler and a whole bunch of tools that we're working on now are all written in ruby and you're all rubious you're all ruby programmers you can go into array and fix it if we've got a problem in partition it's not written in c or java it's written in ruby and i mean let's be serious who here would rather be writing java than ruby no one here wants to write java but businesses don't care about that they care if they're making revenue they don't care if you're happy that's a harsh truth but it's serious so if we want to use ruby we have to make sure that we're making ruby as good as anything else because i don't want this guy telling me what i have to do oracle wants you to use java the same way that microsoft wants to use to use u to use dot net or c sharp or apple wants to use swift or objective c they control it they have an interest in it your happiness is not the most important thing to them oracle even published this paper one vm to rule them all so closing ruby's fun so don't worry have fun but please think about a couple of these things the first is don't worry about people stealing your ideas if they're any good you'll have to cram them down their throats so i'm not worried that we're going to get static types in ruby anytime soon sometimes the questions are complicated and the answers are actually very simple just let nil be returned and then we don't have no method errors on nil anymore you never change things by fighting the existing reality to change something you have to create a new model that just replaces it and no x i put corporation in here no government no army no corporation can stop an idea whose time has come i want this idea to be that we can make ruby the system that we can use effectively and not suffer from these fallacies of programming that i've talked about and finally this one this is a really hard lesson to learn it's only taken me about eight years complain about the way other people make software by making software please follow me on twitter lots of really really cool stuff coming rabbinius very soon and thank you


Pressure pressure It can bring out either the best or the worst in somebody and if certain people know that they're facing pressure and They can potentially be replaced They can either step up or it can make them step out So you two team keep it clean What's going on is saying Raven here with another video and in this video of course all the talk around Raven's town has been about There's Brian this there's Brian that why did the Ravens bring there's Brian in for a workout All the Ravens still going to sign one there's Brian now Y'all of course already know how I feel about the situation while I do feel like there's Brian could be a good fit for the Ravens I do not believe the Ravens are going to sign him I felt like there's Brian was just being used as a smokescreen for something else or somebody else, but today the Ravens they were speaking with one Miles Boykin and A quote from the interview from the press conference. It really made me think about Something different and I'm gonna explain it to you exactly what it is now the quote They of course asked Miles Boykin who a lot of people are thinking about that's the Ravens receiver That most people think about when it comes to there's Brian because of the similarities big body receivers Who got that big catch radius? So He was asked about how he felt about the Ravens bringing in there's Brian for a workout and he said honestly It has nothing to do with me Whatever happens happens. I have to focus on myself and this team first and that's a great answer because that's true it He does have to focus on himself in the team first There's Brian is not a current member of the Ravens. So Miles Boykin does not have to worry about there's Brian but Could the Ravens actually be using there's Brian to get to Miles Boykin Could the Ravens be had cut the smoke screen that I was thinking was about them possibly signing a different wide receiver Could that really be so they can actually motivate one of their own and the reason that I say that is because the Ravens they have used this sort of tactic before they've used this before with different players in different positions and It's either led to that player either doing this thing or it's led to that player either just being shown the door So with Miles Boykin, of course Miles Boykin is in is in his second year last year. He was very raw Last year. He was a rookie. He didn't get many opportunities when he did get opportunities though Usually it ended up working out for him. He did not have many drops He didn't have many catches either but when he did get a catch He made some stuff happen and there were of course a lot of times when Lamar didn't even end up looking his way And it just obviously that was an opportunity that he couldn't capitalize on because he wasn't throwing the ball So the Ravens are they have big hopes big expectations for Miles Boykin in his second year Now, of course the receiver that everybody's attention has been on has been Hollywood So Miles Boykin has been sort of not on the download But they just he hasn't been getting out of the all the attention like Hollywood has because obviously Hollywood was injured last year Hollywood was the first round pick last year Hollywood bulked up this year and Hollywood's been making all these plays and whatnot But I remember the day that it came out that the Ravens were working out there as Brian That was the day that they said Miles Boykin E ended up stepping it up a lot in practice They said he was catching all these pads. They said they did drop to but overall he had a really good day So I was thinking huh Could this actually be what the real smoke screen is? Could they have brought there's Brian in for that workout simply to put some pressure on Miles Boykin to tell him hey Miles step it up Because again, if that is the case, this wouldn't be the first time that the Ravens did that and it all reminds me to You think back to last year last season the Ravens did this same exact thing and It ended up working out. They actually got the guy a four-year extension Right before the trade trade deadline It was said and it came out literally right after the trade deadline had passed It was said that the Ravens were trying to acquire one Jamal Adams. What position does Jamal Adams play? He plays safety. Well, then didn't the Ravens just sign a safety to a 55 million dollar deal last offseason What they certainly did, but he plays the other safety position now He could play free safety, but he's played strong say that he just a safety period. He's a baller But it came out that the Ravens were trying to trade for Jamal Adams So what does that do? What does that make? How does that make somebody like a Chuck Clark feel? Who was is on a low contract? And he was the starter due to injury to Tony Jefferson Deshaun Elliott Chuck Claude Chuck Clark not Chuck Claude Chuck Clark got thrust into the starting role and what happened what what how did he do? Well Chuck Clark ended up balling out and he ended up getting an extension from the Ravens But could the Ravens have actually used Jamal Adams could they have actually used him to put some pressure on Chuck Clark to get A better performance out of him. Hey, who knows another person that they did it with was Nick Boyle if you go back two years ago When Nick Boyle became a free agent With two off seasons ago Nick Boyle became a free agent. So his contract was up It was all it was said that the Ravens wanted to resign him But nothing was happening the talks were just they were going slow and nothing was going on So what happened? What did the Ravens do? Oh a lot of y'all might have forgot sometimes I forget too But they brought in Dwayne Allen. They brought in Dwayne Allen for a workout or whatnot they brought him in for a visit and What type of tight end is Dwayne blocking is he a vertical threat? No, no He's a possession tight end and he's a good blocking tight end And that's exactly what Nick Boyle is and you guess what guess what happened a couple days after Dwayne Allen visit visited with the Ravens Oh, the Ravens and Nick Boyle they come to a contract agreement. What a coincidence, right? So they put that pressure on Nick Boyle like hey You're cool. We appreciate you But we got a replacement ready and waiting and willing just in case you don't want to get this done and Then another person who they put that pressure on but it it kind of worked in the opposite way with him Was Joseph Vincent Flacco with Joe Flacco It had been an up-and-down roller coaster sort of career had a lot of highs had some lows too And but overall, you know, we appreciate Joe Flacco and everything he did for the Ravens But then this was a mix of pressure and also it being time Joe Flacco coming into the last season where he actually has a good chunk of guaranteed money on his contract So the following season the Ravens could could have cut or traded Joe Flacco And it would have done a lot less damage than it would have done in previous years. What do they do? They draft a quarterback in the first round by the name of Lamar Jackson And that put pressure on Joe Flacco because yes while Joe Flacco was still the starting quarterback for the Ravens now You hear a stopwatch Not even a stopwatch but more so a timer a countdown Because now the countdown has begun to where you will be relieved of your starting duties and the more you perform Terribly perform bad or just don't perform up to standards then The shorter that countdown gets And the small amount of time you have left to Step it up So what happened with Joe Flacco? Did he step it up? Not really He didn't necessarily step it down even though in his last game as a raven. Oh, it was uh, it was rough It was rough. Um, just the the field vision was bad A lot of the decisions were bad and it was it was just rough for me but um That was that the the pressure ended up getting him sent out So the pressure like I said earlier the pressure it can work in so many different ways And it all just depends on the player But that's what I think this whole day is Brian thing could really end up being it could really be them putting pressure on Miles Boykin to step it up We'll see how miles Boykin responds to the pressure Team keep it clean Appreciate y'all So like there's Brian is with the ravens for now I'm out


Welcome to The Advocate, where thought-provoking topics are discussed with no holds bad here on Plus TV Africa. We basically call a spade by its name. Today, all the advocates are in one voice against bullying. Famous American actress Madeline Pesh said, �The people who are bullying you, they're insecure about who they are, and that's why they're bullying you. It never has to do with the person they're bullying. They desperately want to be loved and be accepted, and they go out of their way to make people feel unaccepted so that they're not alone. I am talking about the duty of care within the educational system. Helen focuses on the responsibilities of parents, schools and the government. Elijah is looking at correcting a failed system through the educational environment. Anita is asking if the child has any rights, and Tolu is calling for home training and social security of the children. Sit back, and after this break, we'll be here to dissect it all. Stay with us. Bullying and the duty of care within the education system. This past week has been one of tragedy upon tragedy in relation to the care of our children within the educational system. Two particular cases have summed up my fears about my own children and what could happen to them in school. First is the alleged murder of Sylvester O'Romany at during college. Who had been the victim of ongoing bullying until he was eventually brutalised resulting in his death? The second of a school which supposedly carries out inclusive education yet keeps its special needs students in a separate room, using actual physical restraints and electroshock treatment on them. These are just two cases and what we know must be many more. Having two children, one a boy who looks mixed race, has a gentle and kind spirit, as well as a daughter with Down syndrome. I worry about the possibility of them being bullied. At home I do my part to teach my son to stand up for himself and always to inform his teacher or grown up in school if any incident happens and most importantly to always tell me. That if anyone threatens him if he speaks up, that still he should immediately tell a member of staff at school and me as soon as he gets home. Even if they threaten him, his sister or myself with physical harm. For the daughter who has learning delays, it is harder to do. We play scenarios and teach her to shout, run and defend herself. But the comprehension for something like this just isn't there yet. So I do the work at home, but what happens at school? When we hand over our precious ones, the school is responsible for them at all times during those school hours. If something happens, there should be immediate protocols to follow. But who is monitoring and regulating the schools? Honestly, if private schools are left to regulate themselves as they currently are, there is very little hope of anything changing. If governments are not willing to regulate fees exploitation, something I believe is a lot easier to tackle, why would they regulate duty of care protocols? I especially worry for my special needs daughter because students with disabilities are two to three times more likely to be bullied and up to six times more likely to experience physical violence than their neurotypical peers. Children with learning disabilities are two and a half times more likely to suffer sexual abuse and sexually based violence than their peers without learning disabilities. In my eye, it is past time of talking.  We must push our elected officials and those in government to tighten existing laws and create better ones to tackle regulation as our children are not safe in schools. This is a human rights issue. It goes beyond posting on social media. We must petition state and federal legislature. We must make our physical presence known about this issue and we must make sure of regulation and enforcement of education institutions and those who work within them. We must act. And we must act now. Yeah, so I'll say two things. First thing is, you know, I think it's a good time to give a minute of silence for Sylvester. You know, because if you think about it, second is throughout history, there were people who have started a revolution. Think about Rosa Parks. I said no. Think about Martin Luther King, right? Think about George Floyd, okay? And I think Sylvester was just like George Floyd, you know. This issue didn't start today, didn't start last week. You know, but at some points, one person would say no. Unfortunately, Sylvester had to give his life for it. But I think this is a time that the revolution starts and it begins with me and you, you know. We shouldn't have to wait until someone dies, you know. But we must act now. Parents have to start being more responsible with their children. Schools have to put systems in place that make bullying unacceptable on any count. But my thing is that aren't there existing things in place? There are existing things in place, but it seems that there's a very kind of lax attitude. Yeah, they're not enforced. I mean, it's just like the government in Nigeria, right? There are laws against, you know, traffic, laws against tax. I mean, there are laws. But if it's not properly enforced until someone starts to have it, it's just the way we're designed as humans. Until there's punitive measures and there's actual enforcement and there's, you know, there's consequences for those actions. People don't take them seriously. Well, this issue of bullying didn't start now, just like you said. When our parents were in school, I'm sure they experienced it. It's always a common expectation that when you get into secondary school, they'll tell you, when you get there, your seniors will ask you to sweep their classroom or ask you to buy something and they won't give you money or they won't give you enough money and they demand more than what they give you. So they expect you to add your own money, all these things are... I remember when I was in secondary school, I might say, if I experienced one. I think I was, what class was I then? I think I was in JS3 and there was this particular guy in SS3 that asked me to do something and I told him I was going somewhere I was not too fine. The next thing I just saw, I got a slap on my face. I guess what I... I went home, I told my mom, my mom followed me to school and reported to one soldier and the moment the soldier asked for me because I went to a military school, this guy saw me later. I started apologizing, had to apologize to my mom. So I had to not tell my mom that, okay, she let him go since he has apologized. And ever since that time, he became my friend. The next time when he sees me, he just became my friend. But my point is, most people don't get lucky like myself, you know. Students, they pass through these things like an expectation, like a common mindset. We need to change... I can understand that. I can understand that there's a certain protocol, right? There's certain hazing or something that most school just the nature of the younger ones.  That's what it was called in our boarding school. It wasn't a sexual thing, but that's what it was called. So the younger boys would be the servant of the older boys. They would take their laundry, tidy up the room, make their beds, all that kind of stuff. So you are assigned your senior. And you literally had to serve that senior. But he's really proper, that's the question. It isn't. He's not proper. But it seems like a natural thing that happens. My issue is that it isn't Lord of the Flies, because they're not abandoned alone on some desert island. There are adults there. There are people who are in charge. And you cannot tell me that absolutely no one, no one knew what was going on or knows the environment that exists in that school. The problem is regarding that school is that it's a wealthy school. So the people who attend there have money. And that means that one, the school wants to make sure to be taking that money. And two, that they will adhere and bend to the will of those parents. But rather than what is right. Sorry, any good. Sorry, I'm firing today. No, I think, I mean, I understand what you're saying, but I'm also trying to be conscious of the fact that, yes, this one school may be the one that is in the spotlight today. But it's a crisis. It's a crisis. So is it just about the fact that the schools are like looking to take the money or even parents are complicit? Or even where do we draw the line? Because as we've all said from different experiences, I mean, anybody experienced some sort of seniority, like, you know, that kind of, and there's a right of passage, sort of, so to speak. But isn't it, because one of the things I kept on thinking was, when you said enough is enough. So what are we supposed to be doing next? What are we pushing for? What are we actually fighting for? What exactly is the next level for this kind of thing? Before I say what I think is next, let's hear from Helen. Helen, are you there? Yes. Well, unfortunately, I never experienced bullying. And that's maybe because I was the kind of a bully myself. But, you know, I went to a military school and whatever was a punishment was a punishment because one did something wrong. But the unfortunate thing we have here now is that it's not actually the seniors being the bullies. It's actually your mates bullying you. That's a whole new dimension. I can't imagine my classmates bullying me or beating me or whatever the case may be. So I think we really need to look at this thing critically and find out where is it actually coming from? Why are these children becoming mini monsters? What is responsible for this mini monster facade? And look at it deeper and not look at it from the point of, is the senior that is doing the bullying or the teacher doing the bullying? Let's look at it from the classmate point of view. What gives the classmate the audacity to bully his fellow colleague or fellow classmate to the extent that he has a right to commit murder? OK, so I think that kind of, I really like the angle that Helen has taken me from. I think that, at this point in time, with what Tonya has raised as her advocacy, the audacity is one of the things that I have seen when it comes to children. And I'm not a child expert. The only part I can talk about with this is that I'm a certified children's etiquette coach. I was interested when I was doing my certification. There was an area on bullying. And I found it interesting. I was like, why bullying? But then I know that things are coming out. I realize that issues around self-esteem, their pressure, what makes it. And then when you use the quote that said, oh, it's not about the victim, but the person who is bullying. So what gives another child the audacity to look at his pair or happy and say, I want to put you down? It's where, at that point in time, the duty of care within the education system where you have adults who are supposed to regulate how interaction goes on amongst children. And I think that is where the failure is happening in this particular case, as with this particular case. They even have the training to identify such things, a thorough training to identify such things. Because, literally, the schools are doing anything they want. That's a problem. You cannot leave the perpetrator to regulate themselves. And I think those parents actually have, I mean, you know what, I mean, peace conversations. So I think that, yes, I think it starts from the parents. Yes, but get into your portion. Get into your portion. Yeah, let's not let them do that. Let's not let them do that. Because we're going to start entering everybody else's elsewhere, that's where we can have a conversation. But I mean, you're talking about rules and rights. I mean, there are rules already in place in those schools. I mean, bullying is not, if it's not acceptable, it's not. If you have to put signs everywhere, if you have to hold weekly sessions to remind, I mean, children can be programmed. So intention matters. After the break, Helen is next. After the break, stay with us.


Checkpoint inhibitor drugs, such as anti-PD1 slash PDL1, are a new type of cancer treatment that has shown great promise in treating certain types of cancer. These drugs work by blocking the interactions between two proteins, PD1 and PDL1, on the surface of cells. This blocks the signals that tell the immune system not to attack the cancer cells, allowing the immune system to recognize and fight them. Although these drugs have had some success in treating certain types of cancer, they are only effective against certain types of cancer and their effectiveness varies from patient to patient. Additionally, there are still many questions about how best to use these drugs, including whether or not they should be used alone or in combination with other treatments. This article was authored by Hashim al-Alsab, Hashim al-Alsab, Samrash Sao, and others.


If you reverse it, then reverse it back again, and then we again. That wouldn't work, because you just... What do you mean it won't work? I think it will be perfect. We are so screwed if we don't try this at least. The representative is missing, units are melding together, the victorious entity is on the lucent, the self is falling apart, hold under my watch, and yours, when this is all over, you are no longer the Brigadier. I know! I know. Right now we need to focus. The last of us have been sent through. And what do you hope these morons will achieve? The only one with the brain and the heart to sort something like this out was Chris. And he's not coming back.  Bec, you're pardoned.  Don't you dare put down these people!  No. Instead we fight Daleks and Cybermen and Autons and all other manner of space thuggery. They are in there risking their lives. Eccleston, he was a truly great doctor, but he's not the only one. Okay, you're right. I'm sorry. So, what's the next step of your plan? Oh, do we have a plan now? Well, I'm very excited to hear it, I'm all ears. They have eyes on the situation, correct, but we obviously don't. We need to know what's going on in there. So, we need to get in contact, but we can't do that without some sort of telephonic technology that's been through the fracture. One time I leave my phone at my desk. McCoy, here I am! Hello, Chaps. Tom, you made it back? How's it looking in there?  It's rather thrilling.  Oh, that! Not a clue. I was too busy running from Cybermen and messing with Leonardo, you understand. Now, if you'll excuse me. Has something more important than time-ending come up? No, no. Bye. No chance you had your phone on you when you went through the fracture. Well, of course I do. I've got to send Sarah Jane my B-reels after all. Whatever they are. Water's on me.  Great dress sense. I thought you misplaced that. Oh, yeah, well, it's always in the last pocket you look, isn't it? Ah, thank you, David. My favourite. Tap water. Anyway, let's catch each other up. That lady, the one in red, she's a time lady called Zariah and she's currently looking for all the pieces to the time disruptor, the thing that's caused all this. Exposition. No, but that doesn't make sense. It's already been built twice now, once by Colin in our universe and once by whoever started this in this one. Not to her, which makes me think the one she's building is the original. That's why time's getting more and more buggered because we're getting closer and closer to the epicentre. This is such good water. I hate to say it, but I believe timey-wimey is the correct descriptor. Where's the representative? Is he okay? He's in the medical bay, in critical condition, I'm afraid to say. We'll hold him in our hearts, but we can't forget that this time lord victorious thing is still on the loose. And we can't ignore what everyone else was doing. I mean, there was an ode in James Bond cosplaying. What's up with that? I'd say we focus on that. That's weird. Speak of the devil. Excuse me.  Brian. His name is Brian. Yes, he's an assassin that's been tasked with killing that Zariah woman. And me and Kepali have stuck with him to see it through.  Why not? Hey, tell me. Why not? In fact, don't tell me.  By our understanding, she's the cause of all this malakie. Or will be the cause at least. Plus, the three of us are about to become super rich in a universe that none of us wish to stick around in. That money would be useless back home. Plus, I don't think she's entirely to blame. At least not fully. She must have someone back on Gallifrey, but I can't remember the plot. She'll turn up soon. And me and Kepali are team Brian. When she does, you're best to keep your heads down. Oh, and the never-done Lewis, right? I'm seeing if they've got more custard creams. Scooch bite. So much for being sent in to help. We're all stuck on different paths. Team Murder Who'd wrote. Team Time Lord Idiots. Oh, and don't think I've forgotten you, David. I will be inquiring where you've been. Look, I will explain, but right now we need to focus on what's happening right now. I'm going to go talk to that sexy Silurian singer over there. See if she has any valuable information, like her phone number. See ya. He's getting predictable, that boy.  Oh, speaking of team Brian, did you see what they had back in France? Yes, yes, a piece of the disruptor. And that Zariah woman, she said she had one tomb. And according to them, it only requires one more to function. I have a feeling it'll be around here somewhere. Like David said, best we divide and conquer. We find a piece, we destroy it. And failing that, we don't allow Zariah to get to Gallifrey. I'm exhausted. Yes, what is it, what do you want? What did those strangers want? Them, they were just trying to sell me death sticks. Oh, lovely, my favourite. Do share. They were out. Oh, drats. Oh, well, maybe next time, eh? Oh, they're so euphoric. What did I miss? Well, whoever hired Brian has sent a special package to the ship. What's inside? They did not specify. I'm too excited, you look... Why me? Well, partly because I'm just too elated to do it myself. And I suppose there is also the teeny tiny possibility that there's a bomb in there planted by one of my countless enemies. Oh, pass. John, do you mind? But certainly not. It's your mail, so you open it. You know, on our world, it's actually illegal to open someone else's packages. Fine, but this will affect your assassin grades. Oh, my word. You already have a gun. The being who hired me for this job. They must really want this woman dead. Do neither of you know what this is? Well, of course we do. Tell us anyway. This is an anti-time gun. It can kill a time lord. In one shot, it completely cancels regeneration. Only three of these bad boys were ever completed. Oh, this is a high honour indeed. Hang on, that doesn't say I have that exact same gun. It was theorised that it was created by some mad time lord inventor. So I suppose it makes sense that at least one of them would be found on that silly orange planet. Okay, well, let's get out there, find that woman and kill her. Loving the attitude, but you boys best leave this to the professional. Get yourself another drink, boys. And enjoy the show. Very well. And what shall you do? Who's that? Testing, testing. One, two, three. Yes, hello. Can all members of Doctor Who wrote, I see a few in the audience here tonight, congregate here and fill me in. I'm very out of the loop and I'd like some help, please. Thank you. Stick on. Hello, sir. This is the ship's captain speaking.  Ha! Oh! Sorry, I didn't even realise we were in space. That's, um, new. Nice ship, it's very clean.   Give it to the professionals, eh? Hello, dear captain, sir. I am William Hartman of, um, this. Oh, I'm sorry, sir. I didn't realise we had someone as high-ranking as you on board. What can I help you with? Well, firstly, I must congratulate you. This is truly one of the most smooth space cruisers that I have ever ridden. Oh, there you are. You know, they didn't have any custard creams, unfortunately, but they do have mini-rolls. Off-brand mini-rolls for what you... What's he doing? No idea. That's not your psychic paper, is it? I am, however, afraid that we're going to have to make a slight detour. Detour? Detour. Can I ask why? Certainly not, but we must set sail for Gallifrey. No! Gallifrey? Not Gallifrey, I think that was it. Not Gallifrey. Oh, relax. I hear Gallifrey's lovely this time of year. I'm Dean Hartnell. We haven't seen Zariah in Aegis. She might have already found the final piece to the time disruptor. Oh, but she doesn't, my dear. Cos I don't... How the hell did you find that? A very trustworthy person gave it to me with a very simple instruction. Get it and the other pieces to Gallifrey. That's it. They must have given you more. Stop all your jabbeling. Just be more like Tennant here.  William Hartnell. Thank you so much for that. You have been requested by... Briar. Good, cos we need to talk to her. Not you. Or you. Or you. Just him. Let me guess. Are you and Troughton team a set of Gallifrey, but also destroyed time and space as we know it, LOL? Not a catchy name, is it? Not exactly. Me and him are just trying to keep an eye on her. As we know, she's quite erratic. Plus, if it's the path that gets me back to Gallifrey, so be it. Oh. How did we all get sent in here with the exact same goal, and then immediately split up into different tracks? It's like it's designed to be this way. I wouldn't ever think it. Sometimes the universe just does this and we call it scripted. Now, where did that sexy Solerian singer get to again? Nah. Pretty sure she gave me the wrong number. Hello? Solerian? Nah.  What go on? Bill. Where's me? This is not my glass. Oh, we swapped seats.  Firstly, I... You scared the life out of me. What are you doing in a cleaning cupboard? Just you need to grab the... Not important. You know what?  I'll come back. I'll come back. That's fine. As I was saying, firstly I wish to apologise for hurting your friend, the one with the glasses. But in my defence, he was trying to kill me first. Or at least he was trying to. Bless him. I can't fully forgive you. But as a sign of peace, I wish to give you... Old man, you have no idea what you've done for me. No, he really doesn't. As a token of my appreciation, I shall see to it that your friend is okay. Well, that is appreciated. And with all that square, what say we all relax and have some cocktails? I have to ask. Why did you change the ship's course? No, I'm just a holiday maker. That's all. I hear it's quite lovely this time of year. But hardly. There's a billion, billion Daleks raining hellfire down upon it. You do raise a good point, Mr. Chicken.   How will this ship land? It'll be torn to shreds before it even touches the upper atmosphere. Time and space are still colliding, but in helpful ways. It's always pointing me towards my destiny. So scour the ship. Look for any more tears. Now that Gallifrey's our destination, there must be a way to it. And what will you be doing? Me? I'm going to pay that ood one last visit. He's home! Call yourself that again. Did you overhouse any suspicion? Me? Suddenly not. I'm the most subtle man to ever grace God, sir. A likely story. You take over the digging. I'm exhausted. Mr. Dmit, I do feel a tad bad about all this. What?  No, not the whole. Time is falling apart. The cosmic chess board is in tatters. And look at us, we're here doing nothing to help. Oh, who cares about time? What has time ever done for you? Allow me to exist across a linear plane of existence? Well, I could have done that if you only asked. You don't make sense. I'm going to go see if there's way I can assist. What? No, no, no. Think about it. This might be our only chance. We have a distraction so big it's distracted everyone, even the top brass. I'll be back. All right. And if I'm not, you take Harry and set a jane and ace. And you run as far and as fast as you can. See you on the outside. That is the stupidest thing I've ever seen. More bananas, I think, is. Brian the Ood of the Lesser Order of Oberon, was it? Zariah of Gallifrey. And I'm... Sorry, no. You've been chasing me all across time. Bounty on me must be quite high. You will be pleased to hear that you are my highest ever bounty. I'm going to make so much off of you I could comfortably retire. Not that I would, of course. I simply adore murder. You know, maybe he's not the best role model. Are you kidding me? I'll follow this fancy chap anywhere. Who is it that wants me? Oh, come on! It was never going to last, David. Okay folks, nothing to see here. If all doctors could actually hide behind something, not only for your safety, but also to make this easier to film, much appreciated. Final words. But if you truly are the reason for time falling apart, I hardly think you're deserving. I apologise. But she's my ticket to Gallifrey. Speaking of which, how do you leave me in trouble and find a way? Zariah, come on. I doubt insurance will come up. I'm shutting you. Can't just go running through there raging. You'd be going head first into the time war. Alone. Who knows what horrors lie ahead. Don't be daft when going alone. Capale? Come on. John, they're right. We can't let Brian's death, as sad as it is, cloud our better judgement.  The lot of you. The doctor, he has two hearts. He cares twice as much.  We do. We all do. But we need to remember the stakes here.  I'll see you on Gallifrey. It's so hard to say, but the ending is inside. The show ended on Gallifrey, and we have a door right to it. Wait, it does? That would have been good information to know at any point. Yes, as in before we all leapt in in the first place. You were all rushing me. Leave off, I'm helping. He's okay, just sort of healing up. The BBC higher ups themselves. We'll have no choice but to come look at this place. We made it. Oh, my friends, what we have done today will make us heroes in the eyes of the time lots. All I've ever wanted. I give you my thanks, all three of you. Let's go rub this in Romana's face. Wait, so Romana's gonna be there? He's a riot. I'm glad to see you home. Lord Topesh, I am forever grateful and in your debt that you selected me for this mission. Well, there was no one better for the job. I see you've not done this alone. Yes, this is the Time Lord and human duo you sent me, and this random old man. This place is splendid. You dare step foot on Gallifrey and soil again. You are mistaken, Madam President. This is the Time Lord known as the Traveller. I see your vision is as good as your presidential abilities. Wicked incendio. Oh, save it. That man is a human.  Ridiculous! I've been waiting for this. Anyone care to verify? That cost me ten quid.  If not for Romana, then who? The Doctor? Tell me! Zariah. What matters is that you have what you were sent for. Discussing private. Why is it that whenever I try to help, to be the Doctor that I long to be? Maybe next time you could simply not lie. The honest truth is a powerful asset. What about Doctor Rule One? Who are you? Matt Smith or Paul McGann? Your life is different than anybody else's. Isn't that exciting? There's no need for you to lie. You are enough. Have you always been this profound? Since the day I was born. Now, I think we should get ourselves a seat. Something tells me this is all going to get very confusing. Welcome to the High Council Chamber.  I'm afraid not, Miss... Romana... I'm assuming you're here for the vote. My dear, I'm rather in a rush. Is this important? Clearly not to you.  Sorry, hello. What's all this about a vote? Excellent. Absolutely superb. The Prydonian chapter will hail you as our rightful saviour. You really believe so? Of course. With these, we can finally complete the Timeless Rector and defeat the Daleks once and for all. That still leaves President Moron in the way. She'll never allow this to be used. And that is why, in your absence, myself and the fellow chancellors from the Arcadian chapter have forced a vote to take place in just a few moments. The vote is to deem whether I'm fit for presidency. A vote of no confidence. A vote of no brains, more like it. What they've wanted for a millennia. The resurrection... of Rassilon. What? That warmongering idiot? Exactly! But with the time wall reaching its apex, it's who they think they need. With this vote. So spread the word! I beg of you! It's already starting. Can I trust you humans? You can. I promise. Let's go take our seats. Looks like all us Doctor Who Roadlots are present and accounted for. Well, except for Colin Baker, obviously. And Tom Baker, oddly. God knows where he's ended up. Oh, and John Hurd. Well, I suppose he was clever enough not to come along. He does seem to be the smartest. We need to split up and tell everyone in every way. Text message, Bebo, WhatsApp, MySpace, Facebook, Twitter. Rassilon is not to be resurrected under any circumstances. Holy horses, my friends! Flipping John! There's been a change of plan. So much for being the smartest, Asper's. No time to be snarky, Miss Whitaker. We must make sure Rassilon is resurrected. Under Who's authority? The only one any of us can truly trust. Let me explain. I was the last Doctor Through. But I arrived somewhere different to all of you. Somewhere. Davros. Oh, not that prick again. Oh, for God's sake! Don't interrupt my flashback. Sorry. What did he say? You have the clothes of the Doctor. But the face reminds me of a certain Doctor Who road. You are correct. Now, if you could direct me to the others. I will gladly be rid of you. However, I actually have a quest for you to undertake. Me? Help you? I've never heard such arrogant nonsense. I'll find my own way, thank you. Put your hatred of me to one side, Mr. Hurt. Time is fractured. And both of us have a part to play in saving it. Mine is giving you this. What is it? A device that will allow my Daleks passage through Gallic Ray. The Time Lords are the cause of time's collapse. Or shall we? So my Dalek army shall stop. The Daleks will be the saviour of time. Like I said, nonsense. Why should I believe that you have the universe's best-interested heart? You want to destroy it every other week. You cannot conquer what doesn't exist. But I understand your distrust. Luckily, you don't have to trust me. Try this. Sir? Who was it? The Doctor. The real Doctor. Well, if there is one person in this universe we can trust. Okay. We must spread the word and fast. Oh, way ahead of you. I've just transcribed everything you just said into the Doctor Group chat. And I'll send. Everyone will know. Can everyone find their seats or assigned standing positions? Together to resurrect Rassilon. Shall commence...


I must say I've never been so confident, never been more proud and never been more excited as I am today, given the success of our international everywhere and the reports given by the comrades without standing of the progress that we've made over the last months.  And we are on the road to success, there's no two ways about that. When you have the comrades from Canada announcing the biggest force in Canada, comrades in the United States, comrades in Switzerland for God's sake, the land of the cuckoo clock and Toblerone, but now the proletarian revolution and communism. For comrades, we are meeting at a crucial time for the working class. We are on a cusp of great events that are going to take place in Britain and internationally, which are going to put all organisations to the test, including our own. It reminds me of the words of Trotsky who said, those who are looking for a quiet life of choosing the wrong time in which to be born, and what was correct then is correct today. The world is everywhere you look. It's a blaze. There's a crisis in all corners, at all levels, political crisis, social crisis, economic, military, you name it. We see the unfolding catastrophe in Gaza and the Middle East, the latest horror in a series of horrors produced by capitalism on a world stage. We see that the cause of Palestine has literally touched the hearts of millions. The cause of Palestine has become a catalyst, I would say, for the pent-up anger and frustration and bitterness that has accumulated over years and even decades. The fact that hundreds of thousands of millions of people have turned out on the streets to protest against the crimes of imperialism and the actions of their own government. It's a harbinger of what is to come. It's a glimpse of the mass movements that confront us in the years that lie ahead, and the ruling class is worried and concerned about this development, and therefore is prepared or attempting to clamp down on these demonstrations. But every time they do so, it leads to bigger and more determined demonstrations, which shows the pent-up anger that is there, the determination that is being agended by these movements. Of course, we are meeting now, but a few weeks ago there was another gathering that took place, different from what we have today, a gathering in Saudi Arabia of Davos, a meeting of the super-rich, of the bankers, of the industrialists, of the strategists of capital. Who wanted to assess the world situation and the enormous instability that exists, and they were very alarmed by what was going on, particularly in the Middle East, because they realized if this spills over into a regional conflict, it'll have massive international repercussions. And they're not incorrect. Recall that in 1973, when there was a conflict in the Middle East, it resulted in the quadrupling of oil prices and resulted in the simultaneous slump throughout the world. It terrified that this could happen again with all the consequences with it. As one official said, the Gaza war is a terrible humanitarian crisis that needs addressing. He went on, but in the final analysis, it's just another shock. And he went on to conclude, we've had wave upon wave of shocks which is crashing over the world economy. And that's the whole point, that capitalism is experiencing one shock after another in rapid succession. This is an epoch of enormous instability for capitalism at all levels punctuated by wars, economic crisis, slump, devastation. As has been explained yesterday by Alan and quoted elsewhere, quoting Lenin, that capitalism is horror without end, and the world we exist in is proof of that. War and conflict are a product of capitalism and imperialism. It's part of the DNA of capitalism. It cannot be any other way. And those who call for peace, very sincere people, don't understand and need to be told that capitalism itself is the producer of these conflicts. Unless we overthrow capitalism, then they will always exist. In fact, we've had conflicts every day since World War II in one area of the globe or another. There has not been peace as they say it. And that is the nature of capitalism. And that we explain the only way out is the overthrow of this system through the socialist revolution. Of course, there are those who say, well, you know, this is a daunting task, and we can agree it's a hard task. It means enormous sacrifice in overthrowing a system that's been in existence for 300 years, but it's certainly not impossible. And we are certainly against those who say that socialist revolution is utopian or impossible. On the contrary, it's inevitable whether we are here or not. These skeptics, which I believe are also found largely on the left, we have no confidence in the working class. They do not see that the working class internationally is stronger now than at any time in its history. In other words, the grave diggers of capitalism are stronger now than ever before. Obviously, they're not conscious of it yet, but it's events, events, events which changes their consciousness and forces them on the road to revolution itself. Clearly, we are able to understand this because of the ideas that we have. The ideas of Marxism, which gives us a scientific explanation of the movement of capitalism, the movement of classes, how revolution develops, how consciousness develops, the role of leadership.  They don't understand what's going on. They fail to understand and appreciate what is happening, our symptoms of the death agony of capitalism itself. And that revolution is not caused by revolutionaries. Revolution is produced by the capitalist system itself, the contradictions of capitalism. It creates the objective basis for revolution, by the contradictions forcing the working class onto the road of fundamental change. And whether we are here or not, revolutions will take place. The point is, for us as revolutionaries, is to ensure that they are successful revolutions. That is the point, that the working class doesn't squander the enormous energy it has in trying to change society. Capitalism, as we can see, is any complete blind alley. It is no way out.  And there's no safety valves. Eventually now, this will explode. And that's the type of pressures developing within capitalism. Capitalism, it won't be one explosion, but a whole series of revolutionary explosions throughout the world itself. Whereas we understand that the historical justification for capitalism, because it was progressive in its day, has now ended. It has created the productive forces on the world scale of technique, of industry, of science. It has created the world market, but has conjured up those forces it cannot control, it cannot use, it's reached its limits. Only the reorganisation of society on communist lines can this potential be brought into fruition. And the capitalism, it's impossible, it's had its day. Of course, the capitalist will try to get out of these contradictions, they always do, they always try. But every time they do, they create bigger contradictions down the road. In other words, they come into the end of the road, if you like, in attempting to patch up the capitalist system. And we understand the only way out for the working class is the socialist revolution. And that is why we have organised this event this weekend, this school of communism. And we should take to heart the words, the great words of the philosopher Spinoza. Ours is not to weep, to cry or to laugh. Ours is to learn and to understand. And that's what we have to do. We have to learn about the mechanics of revolution. We have to understand the fundamental ideas of Marxism in order for us to understand the world and our role in it. Of course we do not treat Marxism as a dogma, neither did Marx or Engels or Lenin. They saw it as a guide to action. It is our guide to analysing the past revolutions. Those have been defeated to learn the lessons of those defeats so that we do not make the same mistakes in the future. Of course the fundamental lesson, as we know, is that it is a crisis of leadership. If it wasn't for the reformists and the Stalinists who have led the movement down a blind alley, the workers would have been in power a long time ago, but capitalism will not fall of its own volition. It has to be overthrown. And that's why we require a leadership, a party that's prepared to go to the end. But what does the future hold for us? That is the key question. And we have to understand that in each context. For us the greatest event in the whole of history was the Russian Revolution of 1917. Why? Because for the first time ever the working class came to power and held it. It showed you could have a society run without capitalists and landlords and bankers. It showed in practice what could be done. Of course the perspective of the Bolshevik party was that they weren't going to establish socialism or communism in the backward conditions of Russia. That was impossible. And therefore their perspective was that it would be the beginning of the world revolution. It was just the start, the starting point and without world revolution the revolution would not succeed in Russia. That's why they built the communist international in 1919 to prepare the ground for the world revolution. But unfortunately as we know revolutions took place, yes. But they were defeated and betrayed either by the social democrats or the inexperience of the communist movement. And as a consequence you had the isolation of the Russian revolution and the terrible backward conditions of imperialist intervention and so on. That led to its degeneration and you had the rise of Stalinism which in turn became an obstacle to world revolution. Another barrier. Of course in the west you had the crisis of capitalism, the Wall Street crash for instance. And the great depression that followed, the mass unemployment, the degradation. You had the rise of fascism in Germany, in Italy, in Spain. Of course even within this period you had revolutionary movements. The Spanish Revolution but it gave 1936 showed what was possible. But it also led to a defeat because the leadership was in the hands of the Stalinists who betrayed the revolution. And it was these defeats in the 1930s which led to the Second World War and the death of 50 million workers. But the war itself gave rise to a revolutionary wave in 1944, 1945. Particularly in France and Italy where the workers could have taken power but once again the leadership betrayed the movement, the social democrats and the Stalinists. And that was the political prerequisite for the recovery of capitalism at that time. They were responsible. An American imperialism, one of the victors of the Second World War, was able to come in and impose its solution on the rest of the capitalist world. Imposing the dollar, imposing the IMF, reducing the tariff barriers, allowing capitalism to breathe a bit. And it gave capitalism, yes, a new lease of life which resulted in an upswing in the 1950s and 60s. And capitalism for the last time in its history under the pressure of the working class was able to give certain reforms. Big reforms really, the health service in Britain, council housing, you name it. You know these were so genuine reforms, won by the working class. But it also gave rise to the idea of reformism, particularly the right wing variety. You said yes. See, capitalism has changed. We've solved all the problems. We can control capitalism. Everybody's going to become middle class. There's going to be a classless society. And the problem, but let's be clear, it looked on the surface as this was actually being accomplished. And we were told obviously Marxism was out of date, Revolution was out of date. And we said no, on the contrary, that over a period of time capitalism, the contradictions will re-emerge. And therefore there will be a further period of economic crisis. And of course that's exactly what happened in 1974. You had the first simultaneous crisis of capitalism. The ruling class was forced to abandon Keynesianism, the great god, and introduced the policies they had in the 1930s. Monetarism, you know, balanced budgets. And they attacked the working class because capitalism then could not afford the reforms it granted previously. It opened up the period from reforms to counter reforms and attacks on the working class. You had the boom and slump cycle emerging again. Mass unemployment began to emerge. That's the real characteristics of capitalism. The only thing is that they had a certain, again, lease of life. In the 1990s, the fall of the Soviet Union, the opening up of China to capitalism. This idea of so-called globalization, basically an intensification of world trade. They were able then to have a bit of a breathing space. But within the breathing space, because of the rottenness of capitalism, they reverted to speculation. Colossal's amount of speculation was in that particular period. In America, the subprime mortgages were born. They invented all kinds of financial wizardry. Derivatives making money from money without production. As if you could do that, in other words, fictitious capital was created. Which led eventually triggered a new slump in 2008-2009. The biggest crisis of capitalism in its history. And the grueling class was terrified that that would lead to another depression. As in the 1930s, they were sliding towards it. And the only way they could get out of it was spend trillions of dollars to bail out the banks and capitalism that are lower interest rates as never before. In other words, they had to do things they'd never dreamed of before to save the system. And as a consequence, you had a period of this, because this had consequences. 10, 15 years of austerity developed in all the major capitalist countries. Attacks on the working class, lowering living standards. And that led to a political instability, a social instability everywhere as this consequence came about. And we can see that in relation even to Britain's sleepy old Britain. How that changed from the most stable country in Western Europe to becoming one of perhaps the most unstable countries. What do we have in the last seven years? The rise of Scottish independence. The collapse of the Labour Party in Scotland. Brexit. A self-harm for British capitalism. The rise of Corbyn. Unknown the Labour Party. The ruling class losing control over the Labour Party. My God, temporarily at least. And then the rise of Boris Johnson and all the rest of it. The ruling class losing control over the Tory Party. Just like in America. Same process happening in these different countries. In Greece, in Spain, of Podemos, Syriza. In United States, Bernie Sanders. And also Trumpers, that's all part of this enormous churning up in crisis within society. Never happened before. This is the reason underlying this is the crisis of capitalism itself. In other words, Trotsky said. The ruling class are tobogganing towards disaster with their eyes closed. And then we had the slump in 2020, 2021 combined with the pandemic. Another catastrophe. And then once again they had to bail capitalism out. Trillions of dollars being poured into the capitalist system to hold it up. It was on, you know, basically support. State support is holding it together. That's all. Life support in that sense. Of course they didn't have the money. It's all built on debt. So you've got mountains and mountains and mountains of debt created everywhere. The world level of debt, 350% of world GDP is debt. And this is according to the IMF is unsustainable. But on the other hand it said they can't do nothing about it because taking it away will have big political and social consequences. So they stuck in this vice at the present moment. And of course the problem is if or when there's another downturn they've run out the road. And it's not me saying it. It's the ruling class who's saying it. I've got your quote from the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund. Who said, we've finished. This is what he said, his name is Pierre Olivier Grandiers. And he says, I don't think they can do it again. That is bail out capitalism. We don't have an insurance policy anymore. There's no protection. And lastly, we are at the edge. Well the edge of what? The edge of an almighty catastrophe facing capitalism. If there's another crisis and they can't bail it out then all bets are off as far as they can say. That's the ruling class talking. Not the Marxist. It gives you an idea what the future holds. Enormous instability politically, socially you name it. And the danger of hanging over capitalism of a further crisis and a depression. What is this going to mean for consciousness? Amongst the working class. Amongst the middle classes. Amongst the youth.  In other words, we're heading for an unprecedented period of turmoil where layers of workers and youth are going to draw revolutionary and radical ideas. Precisely, this is the perspective that's opening up before us. Of course you can say it's not a straight line and it's true. There will be defeats. There will be victories yet, but there will be many defeats. Given the fact that the Labour and Trade Union is in the middle class. Many defeats given the fact that the Labour and Trade Union leaders are reformists. That would be inevitable, but in that process there are the shocks. In that process are the events which change people's outlook, change people's views on what is happening and how quick is happening. Look at what happened in Britain a few weeks ago where Stammer, our great reactionary leader of the Labour Party, Sir Stammer, comes forward and says, yes, we must blockade, justifies the blockading of Gaza.  It was one survey conducted of 30,000 Muslims within that period. Bear in mind in 2019 the Muslim vote for Labour was 71%. If there's a general election tomorrow, it will go down 5%. That's an enormous change in a matter of days, man. And that's because of the events themselves and that's going to affect us generally, the youth and others. Of course it also augurs what Stammer Government is going to be like. I tell you all hell will be popping under Stammer Government because they'll try and carry out the policies of the Tories at the present moment. So we, and many people can see through the lies of the press, of the MPs, of parliamentary democracy, even now they can see through it. Much more they will see through it as we move down into this deeper crisis. Therefore we have all these elements coming together, producing a pre-revolutionary crisis in society. We have elements there now. In other words, this is the storm we're entering. This is the period that we're entering. I think as Ali explained yesterday, he caught into a trotsky inherent in reformism is betrayal. That's the lesson. Well we can see it from the right wing, right reformists and Stammer. They're out and out agents of the ruling class. You can see it quite clearly as though it's not to ifs or buts about that. But the lefts, they are in the same boat in so far as they maintain there's no other alternative but capitalism in reality. They think they can reform capitalism, make it better, make it nicer, make it sweeter for the working class. They have these illusions. So when the working class tries to move and change the society, which we are what they be trying to do, hold it back, it can't be done. Let's be realistic, let's not be utopian comrades. That'll be their view. And all they come forward is what's taxed the rich. So the last week, you know, oh we should tax the rich and take the money and put it back in the economy and make the economy grow. So they want to tax the rich to give it to the capitalist economy. So the capitalist economy, that's the logic of their argument because they don't get me wrong. Instead of that we should expropriate the rich. That's the whole point about it but these people are tinkering. Tinkering round the edges all the time, looking for a way out. As if capitalism can be tamed into a nice sweet thing. But as I think it was Tony who said in the 1930s, you know, well you can peel an onion leaf by leaf but you can't skin a live tiger claw by claw and capitalism is not an onion. Capitalism is more like a man eating tiger. And therefore we have to draw the necessary conclusions from this analysis itself. But of course they fear this. They fear it. Of course what we have to do is to draw out the lessons. I mean I was thinking what would Corbyn have done if he had come to power in 2019? He would have tinkered round the edges but all hell would have broken loose because the ruling class would have sabotaged it. Look what they did with Liz Truss and she was a Tory. Good God. Look within a few days they brought the government down on the basis of hiking up interest rates. A run on the pound, that clearly would have happened in the Corbyn and what were you going to do? Marbleise the working class to crush capitalism? I don't think so. It would be a question of capitulation because they don't know anything else. Compromise, try and get round it and so on. We have to open our eyes as to what the realities are in relation to reformism and what is required that is in a revolutionary party. But I'll say also, given the experience of the last period socialism as a term has been more devalued because of this. Years and years of people, if you like welfare capitalism that's what it's been identified as. Well even Starmer calls himself a socialist brothers and sisters. So if you think that it gives you an idea how demeaning this word has become. Obviously we understood, given the Fraser Institute poll where young people are looking beyond that, beyond the idea of milk and water socialism, welfare capitalism, they want a fundamental change in society. That's why they've looked towards communism in order to do it. That's the nitty gritty of what you're talking about and they believe are absolutely correct and we should draw the next conclusions as well. We should not be behind, we should be in advance of what people are thinking and young people in particular if we're going to succeed. We have to go back and think in the same way that Marx and Engels when they came into political activity they didn't call themselves socialists because the socialists at that time were utopians were muddled people and they accepted the idea of they decided to call themselves communists. That's why we don't have the socialist manifesto. We have the communist manifesto. That is the founding document of our organisation in the same way at Lenin in 1917 when he came back from exile, drew the conclusion that because of the betrayal of the social democrats in 1914 we should cast off the dirty soil of the social democracy and put the clean linen on, the clean linen of communism in order to differentiate themselves from the betrayal of the past and I believe that we also should do the same. We should draw the lessons. In other words, on what we are proposing and what we are going to do is that we think that Socialist Appeal as a title has had its day. And from January of next year it will be called the Communist. I can see you are keen about that one. Let's go a step further than that. In Britain at the present time there is an organisation called the Communist Party of Britain. It is the left overs of the old Communist Party. It's very small, but it's far from being concerned. It's not the size that matters. It's the fact that they're not communists that matters. They are reformists. They are left reformists at best. Their programme is little different from the Labour lefts and the trade union lefts. They have devalued the whole basis of what communism is. And therefore we think that we should step up and we should fly the flag of communism in Britain. That's the whole point and as a result we believe now, given the objective situation opening up in Britain given the potential as I outlined it earlier on we need to, if you like, boldly stand out much, much more than ever before. And we believe that we should organise a Congress next year, a founding Congress of a new political party called the Revolutionary Communist Party. We are the target of achieving 1,000 members of the organisation by the end of this year. And after the success, I would say of the Are You a Communist campaign in particular and the audacity of the comrades themselves and the potential that exists out there. Well, earlier on this week I was given a figure beginning of this week. And the early figure, so I'll give you the latest one in a minute, the earlier figure was 1,087. On Friday I was told that it was 1,093 and today it is 1,101. All I would say comrades this is the beginning and the reason is that we're going to step up because we have to step up. If we've got 1,100 members now then next May we should have 1,500. That's the target and by the end of the year 2,000 members. That's what we have to do. Given the situation, we'll see if it goes but there's no reason why we can't put on the agenda the idea of 5,000 members within the next couple of years. And as you know comrades it's a step in stone to 10,000 members. Let's not get swelled heads over it but by Christ it's there for the taking if we're prepared to step up. That's the whole idea behind it. And these initiatives, they're not there as cosmetics. These are the means by which we achieve these particular objectives. If there's what 29% of young people in Britain who look into communism, that's 4.5 million people surely we can tap into that. And therefore this is obviously not going to be the straight line clearly up and away but look events change very quickly. The movement changes very quickly under these circumstances. Look at what happened with the Bolshevik Party. In February 1917 they had 8,000 members. By October they had 400,000 members. They had conquered the Soviets and conquered the majority of the working class. That was under exceptional circumstances because of the war conditions which brought down all the illusions if you like and they were able to build upon it. So our development is clearly going to be more protracted. That's clear. But there are occasions where revolution itself produces a great impetus for the growth of the organisation. Take the example in Spain of the Pum in 1936. The Pum were the party of Marxist unification. It was a semi-revolutionary organisation. It wasn't fully Marxist, semi-revolutionary. Yet it had 2,000 members in July 1936. Within a matter of weeks it grew to 40,000 and 50,000 members under the heat of the revolution. That shows you the dynamic potential that exists at that time and will in my opinion develop in the future. We should look and think big. Not get swelled ahead but think of the reality. Think of how we can measure up to the possibilities that exist. Of course our point of reference is the development of the British Revolution and the world revolution. We must be in sync with that particular development. That's why we stand on the shoulders of the Bolshevik party. We stand on the shoulders of the greatest revolutionary party in history. We must lead the working class, the power. What we need comrades is for us individually to look at ourselves and to pledge ourselves to the common communist revolution in Britain and internationally. It's there for the taking if we are prepared to do the work which is necessary. And therefore we need to prepare ourselves politically, theoretically. We have to train and educate our comrades. Theory is the basis of our tendency, that's clearly. But we will not take the line of least resistance. If there are obstacles put in our way and they will be, we will overcome them. When the class struggle moves we will intervene. And when the hour for decisive action comes we will take it. In other words we will be honour the revolutionary spirit on which we are building this particular tendency. What we want is audacity, revolutionary audacity in order to build such an organisation which is there possible providing we shape up ourselves. We need to toughen up. Yes, it's going to be hard. We have to understand itself sacrifice that is needed. But we also understand the potential. I'd like to quote Leon Trotsky's advice to the young communist party in 1925. Where he said, the contradictions undermining British society, which is 12 months before the general strike by the way, remember. The contradictions undermining British society will inevitably intensify as they will for us. We do not intend to predict the exact tempo of this process. But it will be measured in terms of years or in terms of five years at most, certainly not in decades. This general prospect requires us to ask above all the question, will a communist party be built in Britain in time with the strength and the links with the masses to be able to draw at the right moment all the necessary conclusions from the sharpening crisis. In this question, he says, in this, sorry, it is in this question that the fate of Britain remains today. And that is the case as far as we are concerned. Communist, we are at the crossroads. The crossroads of history. We have to step up and understand the tasks on our shoulders. The fate of the revolution rests with us.  That's our victory. That's where our aim is.