Good morning, everybody, and thanks, Donald, for the nice introduction. The paper I'm going to present today is called the Impact of School Fees on the Intergenerational Transmission of Education, which is a joint work with Sonja Balotta from the University of Bristol and Stefan Klaas from the University of Goetting. To give you a little bit of a background, we know that reforms in education and investment in school infrastructure in recent years have led to improvements in enrollment in many developing countries. For example, net enrollment rates increased from 60% to almost 80% in the last decade. However, we also can observe that these improvements are unevenly distributed, so despite average improvements for many developing countries, the goal of universal primary education by 2015 is not very likely to be met, and we also know that Sub-Saharan Africa is the region that lacks most behind this goal with around 22% of school-aged children not enrolled in primary education. We also know from the empirical literature that educated parents not only tend to invest more time and effort in the education of their children, they also tend to be wealthier, and however, most studies on intergenerational transmission of education are focused on developed countries, mostly taken for the US, while only a few studies analyze intergenerational transmission of education in developing countries. An example is the paper by Hertz and other authors, and they found an average correlation of about 0.4 in years of schooling, so an additional year of schooling of the mother would lead to an additional 0.4 year of schooling of the child, and however, a small problem occurs when one wants to analyze intergenerational transmission in education, which is the problem of ability bias, so it is possible that we overstate the association between parental and children's education if ability is transmitted genetically from mothers to children, so more able mothers would then have more able children, and even among mothers with the same ability, this problem can occur due to assortative mating, and the paper for the US on twins by Berman and Rosenzweig showed that there might be a problem and this association can be overstated, so we should keep this in mind, and I will later talk about this a bit more. School fees, which have been introduced as a means to fund the school system, are found to be significant barriers to educational enrollment, especially for the poorer households, but fortunately, there is an ongoing trend of introduction of free primary education in many developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. However, limited resources to fund the education system remain a big challenge, and hence there is limited cross-country empirical evidence on the impact of the introduction of free primary education on children's educational outcomes. There are some studies on the impact on enrollment, and they all show that with the introduction of free primary education, enrollment in primary education has gone up. In this study, we have two objectives. The first one is we would like to analyze pattern of intergenerational mobility in education across countries, and over time using a large sample of household survey data for several countries and periods, and second, we analyze the direct effect of school fees and the introduction of free primary education on educational attainment of children, as well as the impact of free primary education on the intergenerational transmission of education. And so far, there's no comparable cross-country study that does it, and there also exists no study using micro-data, and there exists no previous study that concentrates on an outcome indicator. So I mentioned a couple of studies that analyze the impact of free primary education on enrollment rates, but not on actually outcome-like years of schooling. As our data source, we use demographic and health surveys, which are large-scale national representative household surveys conducted since 1984. So average sample size is between 5,000 and 30,000 women, aged between 15 and 49, and they provide rich information on population, nutrition, health, education, and socioeconomic status of the household. And so for most country, even though it's a cross-sectional data source, more than one survey up to six surveys are available. So what we did, we pooled all available surveys, which are around 190 that have information on education for almost 70 countries between 1990 and 2012. And this would then come up with about one million children, aged between 15 and 18, born between 75 and 72 and 97. And we focused on this particular age group of 15 to 18 because years of schooling is, of course, dependent on the age of children. And so we aimed to look at children, but of course we would need to take into account that they should have almost finished their primary and secondary education at the time of the survey. Unfortunately, there's very limited information on school fees and the abolishing of school fees in developing countries. And so one example is the comprehensive World Bank report from 2006, which analyzed the experiences of countries with respect to primary education and whether they have school fees or not. And another World Bank report from 2009 that focused on the experiences that some African countries have been made in abolishing school fees. So we take these two World Bank reports as our main source, which countries have school fees and which countries have introduced primary education, focusing only on formal school fees. We do not take into account any informal costs of schooling. So we have no information on that. So we define two dummy variables on free primary education. First one is free primary education equals one if primary education is free in the country and zero otherwise. And this is of particular importance. We also take into account the year of the introduction of free primary education and the age of the child. I will give you an example below. And the second dummy is called partly free primary education, which equals one if primary education is free and the age at the time the free primary education was introduced was in the official age range of primary education. So for example in Bangladesh, the year of introduction of free primary education was in 2000 and official age range for primary education is six to 11. So the free primary education dummy equals to one if the child is born for 1994. And the partly free primary education dummy is one if the child was aged seven to 11 in 2000. And this should capture a bit that children that are already in the official age range of primary education are, but are not in school, maybe are then sent to school a bit later once the free primary education reform has taken place. And in addition to verify our results, we also define a more continuous variable measuring the individual years of potential exposure to free primary education. For example, in the case of Bangladesh, children born before 89, so 2000 minus 11 would then have zero years of exposure to free primary education children born in 1990 would then have one year of exposure and so forth. Okay, our empirical approach is then straight forward.  And we also include a time and country fix effects that should absorb the average differences in education of children between countries and over time. And then in the second step, we introduce interaction terms of our free primary education information with the years of schooling to assess or investigate the impact on free primary education on intergenerational transmission of education. Okay, looking at some descriptive results first, this table shows the mean years of education for children, mothers and fathers in our sample and a couple of things are interesting here first. We see that fathers are much more educated on average than mothers. We also see quite large standard deviation indicating large within and between country variations in our sample. We also see large differences across regions, especially between Southern Africa and America with respect to years of schooling. And looking at the evolution of years of schooling over time, we observe considerable increases in years of schooling of about 1.5 years of schooling between the first and latest birth cohort. And what's also promising is that mothers education has been increased much more than fathers education with respect to the birth cohorts of the child. So over time, mothers education has increased a lot. Okay, in our sample, these are the 23 countries that actually have introduced free primary education in recent years. And the table also shows the respective age range of free primary education. And looking then at the shares of children age 15 to 18 that have actually access or partly access to free primary education, this figure nicely shows the efforts the countries have been made to introduce free primary education in the last decade. Okay, looking at our main results, here is the impact of school fees on educational outcomes. First, let's start with the impact of the years of education of the mothers on education of the children. Similar to the Hertz paper I mentioned at the very beginning, we found a correlation of almost 0.4 in all our specifications in our models. So then looking at the primary education dummies in column two, we find a positive impact of free access to free primary education of about 0.18 years of schooling. And for looking at the interactions, what's quite interesting is that there are a negative as well as partly free primary education has a negative impact. And this one possible explanation is that although enrollment rates among children that are older when the free primary education was introduced enrollment rates can go up, this is not automatically translated into actual improvements in the achievement in education for this particular age group. And looking at the interactions, there are statistically significantly negative meaning that mothers with more levels of more years of education benefits less from the impact of free primary education than mothers with children with less educated mothers. And this is quite interesting because we see here that first free primary education not only increases the stock of human capital within the country, it also seems to improve the distribution since poor educated mothers benefit our children with poor educated mothers benefits disproportionately more than children with better educated mothers. And the same holds for the effect when we use fathers instead of mothers. We verify our results using these years of exposure as a continuous variable. Here it shows a similar picture. So for example, a child that has six years of exposure to free primary education would gain of about 0.2 years of education and also here the interaction term is a negative variable or previous results. And what I also wanted to show you is the effect on our free primary education for children living with their non-biological mothers. So for example, orphans or children living with their grandparents or foster parents. So and this takes into account this ability bias because with this we can bypass this problem a bit. And it's quite interesting that first, although we have an effect of the non-biological, the education of the non-biological parents on the education of the children. However, it's smaller than with the biological parents. So now it's only about 0.2. And the effect of free primary education on children's education is a bit higher. And this seems to confirm that biological parents tend to invest more in their children than non-biological parents. And this also leaves a much greater leverage for the introduction of free primary education. Okay, to conclude, we find a positive impact both of mothers' education, as well as free primary education on children's education. And we also find a significant gradient in mothers' education in benefits of lifting school fees. However, our results should be treated with cautious due to severe data limitations. So first of all, we assume linearity and returns to the education of the mother. So it does not make any difference whether she gets from zero to one, or six to seven, or 12 to 13. And also, we implicitly assumed that the introduction or removal of user fees is exogenous. However, and this can, of course, bias or reside, however, from our readings of the World Bank report, we understood that the initiatives that starts the removal of user fees and the introduction of free primary education was more driven by a general understanding of the importance of education for investments in human capital and driven by UN organizations to accelerate human capital in developing countries. But we are still working on these limitation issues to verify our results and do a lot of robustness checks. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Gana.


The narcissist has no limitations, the narcissist has no limitations or restrictions on their dysfunctional behavior. They place no significance or importance on the act of controlling or reducing the dysfunctional way in which they act or conduct themselves. The narcissist could be described as someone who is the lowest of the low. They could be described as people who are the most immoral or socially inferior of all. They do not conform to any accepted standards of morality. They do not hold any principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. They do not honor or respect any system of values or principles of conduct. They have no limitations or restrictions over the way in which they behave. They engage in behaviors that might be considered to be immoral. Behaviors that are unfair and not based on the principles of equality and justice. They engage in activities that are dishonest or dishonorable. They engage in behaviors that might be considered to be undesirable or unexpected. Behaviors that a normal healthy person would not approve of. The narcissist has no limitations or restrictions on their dysfunctional behavior. There is no low that they won't go to. There is no boundary that they will not cross. If they feel the need to do or engage in something to exercise their false sense of power and control or regulate their emotions and boost their self-esteem, they will do it. The longer you stay with the narcissist, the more you will realize and accept this. The narcissist can be very silly and immature, willfully causing pain and suffering to you and feeling no concern about it. They will spoil or ruin any opportunities or chances of success that you may have. They will display a strong or unreasoning desire for revenge. They will desire to hood or harm you in return for an injury or wrong that they have suffered. The quickest and most efficient way to identify if you have caused a narcissist's injury is to observe how the narcissist is treating you. If they display a desire to hood or harm you, whether they are overt or passive aggressive, it is likely that you have injured them. They will often overreact, responding more emotionally or forcibly than is right or reasonable. You may think that you have seen everything that the narcissist is capable of doing. You may think that they couldn't do anything that you wouldn't expect, anything that would cause you to feel astonished or shocked, but then suddenly they do something so immorally wrong and socially inferior that even you didn't expect it to happen, something that you never thought they would do, something you never thought they were capable of. This is because they have no limitations or restrictions on their dysfunctional behavior. If they feel the need to do something to get a reaction from you or to make themselves feel better, they will do it. In their minds they are the victims. Everything that they are doing is intended to defend or protect them.  They believe that they are in danger or that they are under attack, so they are going to do whatever it takes to defend themselves. The problem is, to anyone outside of them or their situation, it doesn't look so serious or urgent. It can be very difficult to tell what they believe is threatening them or what they are defending themselves against. The reason for this is because they are fighting something within them, rather than something that is occurring in the external environment. If you confront the narcissist on their behavior, it will trigger them to react with very intense feelings of shame. These feelings of shame can be very irrational and exaggerated. It will cause a narcissistic injury and they will feel as though their world no longer makes any sense. It causes them to feel extremely vulnerable or at risk. They feel trapped and oppressed. They feel as though they are in a fight for their lives. The intense feelings of shame that they feel can overbalance the delicate, vulnerable concoction of lies and fabrication that they have created to manage their self-worth. It makes them reflect on and question the false favorable opinion that they have created of themselves, which then has an effect on their ability to follow through and get things done. The only thing that they can do in this situation, other than going within and imploding, is to attack you in what they believe is self-defense, to stop themselves from collapsing violently inwards. When they feel that this is happening, they will react with an expression of violent uncontrollable anger or they will use tactics such as denial, projection, blame-shifting or gaslighting. They will accuse you of hurting or manipulating them.  This is all designed to prevent the intense pressures within them from bursting inward by deflecting the force onto you through use of coercion or intimidation. In their minds, if they can label you as being crazy, they don't have to believe anything that you say. If they say that you are trying to hurt or manipulate them, you are not a trustworthy or credible source of information. It has nothing to do with the external environment. It may seem as though they are trying to convince you or get you to believe something, but they are actually just trying to convince themselves. If they can get you to believe it, it makes it more believable for them, but they are not really targeting you. It is a hopeless sense, need or desire for them to convince themselves that they are not worthless or insignificant. When you are in their presence, they feel threatened by some quality, ability or talent of yours. They feel threatened so they believe that you must be threatening them. They feel vulnerable or at risk. So they believe that you must be causing them to feel vulnerable or at risk. In their minds, the evidence that you are threatening them is in their feeling of being threatened, regardless of what is occurring in the external environment. They believe that their feelings are facts. If they feel threatened, they believe that you are threatening them. If you try to display any facts or evidence to them, they will think that you are trying to manipulate them. They will think that you are trying to control or influence them or use them to your advantage. They will feel as though you are trying to talk them out of their feelings, which they believe to be facts. In their minds, they believe that you are trying to manipulate them, which will only convince them even more that they are right. They know that what they are doing is wrong. They might hold idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument, but this is usually caused by them believing that their thoughts, wishes or desires can influence the external world or denying truth or reality. They know what is right and what is wrong. They are capable of identifying when something wrong is done to them. They know that abuse towards anyone is wrong, but in their minds, they are not abusing anyone. In their minds, what they are doing is self-defense or justice for the wrong that you have done to them. They believe that you are the abuser. You are the one who has caused them to feel threatened and caused them to feel hurt. So they believe that you deserve everything that they do to you. They might not tell you this, but you can usually identify it from their behaviour. And this is why they have no limitations or restrictions on their behaviour. They believe that they are under attack and they are just trying to survive. So they will do whatever it takes to make you ineffective or unable to produce a significant or desired effect by applying an opposite force or effect. This can even result in murder. If that's what they have to do to neutralise their target and defend themselves against their feelings of being threatened or hurt, they have to control the target to manage or regulate their self-worth. The loss of their control of the target poses a threat to their self-worth and this loss of self-worth can put them in a state of despair where they then desire to murder their target. The murder of their target then allows the narcissist to re-establish control and their self-worth. The narcissist is very shameful, hurt and afraid. They experience painful feelings of humiliation or distress caused by their consciousness of wrong or foolish behaviour. They feel inadequate by you outdoing or surpassing them. They constantly experience pain and emotional distress. They constantly experience fear and anxiety caused by the threat of danger, pain or harm.  Thank you for watching. I hope this video resonated with you. Please like, comment, share and subscribe. Click the bell icon to receive notifications for my future videos. If you would like to donate, my PayPal link is in the video description. Coaching inquiries can email me at narksrothercoaching at gmail.com. Check out the emergent dice in the Narksrother store where you can purchase your own Narksrother t-shirt, tank top or mug. The link is in the video description. Thank you for watching and I'll talk to you soon.


Will this video get more or less views than a normal video? We're about to find out. Hello gamers and welcome to more or less.  It's been around for quite some time.  So let's actually, let's start out with YouTubers because I'm interested to see how well I do. All right, Vegeta or Jelly. Jelly has less YouTube subscribers. Wow, 22 million. YouTube has more. How many does it have? 32. The richest has less subs. Sarah Beauty Corner has, I don't know what that is, less subs. Oh my God. So many people with 10 million plus. Sidemen, I'm gonna say has more. Sidemen's huge. It is insane how many subs people have. At least Shadow Lady has less than that. Yes, Pokimane. This is tough actually, because Pokimane's main platform is Twitch. But I don't know if she has, I feel like maybe she has like 10 million subs. I'm going, I feel like Pokimane has 10 million. I'm gonna say more. God, just barely less. Are you kidding? Okay, I feel like I can do this. Jenna has more. Sorry, who is this? 97 million? How have I never heard of this channel ever? That's popular. What? This video has almost a billion views. How?  Okay, YouTube has less.   What, DanTDM doesn't have 43 mil. A measly 26, PlayStation has less than that. Oh my God, KSI has more. It is insane. Lana Rhodes has less than 23 million. David Dobrik has more. I'm gonna say less than David Dobrik. There are so many channels that have so many.  Tasty has less, I think. Yup, PewDiePie has more, obviously. Casper has less. David Dobrik has more. Dude, there are so many channels that I just don't even know about, that they have 211 million subs now.  More Sidemen has less. I don't know who that is, I'm gonna say more. I don't know who that is and they have 45 million subs. Daniel Howell, I know him. I don't think he has that many subs though. He only has six million, really? Shadow Lady has more. Yes, PlayStation has, fuck, how much was it? Less? Syndicate has less. Try again, one more time. The richest has more, I think they have 20.  I think he has more than Roman Allen. I think he has, fuck, goddammit. Okay, let's try and beat 11. Let's try and get to 15. Infinite has, okay, Jelly has more subs. He has like 20, something. Serb Unicorn has less, I think. Oh, this is tough. NigaHiga has like 20 something, I think. Yes, 21. I don't know who that is. Oh, god, I'm gonna say more. 38 million, are you kidding? I've never heard of so many of these people. I guess a lot of them are from different countries and I don't speak the language. So why would that get pushed to me? That makes sense. But still, it's just like wild how many, how many subscribers people have that like I've never heard of before. Like Nasia has 89 million. James Charles has less, 24 mark has more than James with 32, W2S, I don't know who that is. Oh my god. That has more, 45 mil. Vanos, Vanos I think has like 50 mil or something, right?  I thought, well, silver medal. Let's try one more time, one more time. Mark has less, speed round, less. Sundy has less, BCC gaming, I'm gonna say less. Dan has more, he has over 10 mil. KSI has less, he has like 15.  He has less cause he has 10 mil or 15.  I don't think they have 15. Oh, more Sidemen.  Oh my god. Oh sorry, German has more. Sidemen has less than that.  Let's try the cost of movies. I feel like this will be good. Do little, pitch perfect to less production than that. Uncut gems, I think, it's more than 30. Oh, uncut gems was cheaper. Okay, contagion. Do little has more, okay, Superman returns. I'm gonna say, that's hard. I'm gonna say less. 275, okay, Pinocchio, less money. Yeah, JoJo Rabbit, more for sure. Bad boys for life, probably more than JoJo, okay. The Hobbit, absolutely more. 200 million, Ford versus Ferrari. I think it's gonna be up there, but not over 200. There we go, Fast and Furious, definitely more. Twilight, less, they, 37 million for Twilight. That is actually way higher than I thought. Green Lantern, more. Pie, less, way less, 60,000. Captain America, absolutely a lot. Halloween, less. Spider-Man into the Spider-Verse costs more than that, for sure, 90 mil. Super-Size made less. Captain Marvel, obviously more. The Revenant. Ooh, that one was close, Friday the 13th, 2009. I'm gonna say less, yep. Okay, Contagion, Contagion was like 11 million or something. I think it was 14 million. I think it was 60 million, 16, no, not bad. Let's try it one more time. Okay, less, yeah. Jesus, water, more. The Artist, I never saw it. I don't think it was more than Shape of Water, though. There we go, water to the rings, more, seven, less. Conicles and R.A. and more. It's just that VFX budget, more. Conicles and R.A. cost more than that. Jesus. I did not think that at all. Ah, Fortnite YouTubers, YouTubers. PewDiePie video, specifically Felix's videos is a whole section. There's not even most popular videos on YouTube. It's just Felix's videos. Okay, let's find out if I really am a bro. YouTube Rewind 2018 has less. Testing out eye tracking has less. Jabba the Hutt has more.  Fabulous has more. Unboxing has more. Parting the backyard has less. Bottle flip challenge. Oh no, I got eight, no in the first try. Congratulations. Fish Lasagna has less. 200. What's Felix's most popular video? Fish Lasagna, 300 million views. How many channel views does he have? 28 billion views.  Jesus Christ. It is insane just like looking at some of the top YouTubers on the platform. Seeing how many views people get is nuts. Like today, or one day ago, just like basically two to five million views every single video. Mark gets like a million or probably like two million. Mark gets, yeah, between two, two and four basically two and four million views every video. Sean also between like one and three every single video. It's nuts. It's crazy, dude. It is insane.  Okay, all right, calm down. 73 million views, 72 million views. Over 50 million views. Over 50 million views on every single video. It's insane. What is his most popular video? 263 million. Let's do this real quick. Okay, I added up in the last year, he's gotten 1.6 billion views just in a year. That's, and that's just off of this one video. That's insane. Let's give him an $8 CPM. Yeah, just in the last year, like minimum on an ad rev.  That's insane. Okay, let's choose a different game mode. Jesus Christ. That's nuts. I don't know what I'm gonna do if I got that many views. But maybe we should find out. Let's go to IMDB ratings for the final one. Let's see real quick. Oh, this is gonna be really hard. This is the IMDB rating. American beauty has a higher rating. Yeah, some like it hot, has a lower rating. Scream has a lower rating for sure. 6.5, frozen two, higher rating. Transformers, lower for sure. The Lone Ranger, higher. Terminator two, probably higher. Oh yeah, the kid, I don't know what that is. Oh my God, did you mon the movie? Lower, for sure. Yeah, the battle of Alkears, higher. City Lights, Charlie Chaplin, higher. Oh yeah, baby. Room, lower. Dark Knight, higher. Oh, this is tough. Oh my God, The Gentleman. I don't know what that movie is. Oh my God, The Outfit, lower. Prisoners, 17 though. Not bad at all, not bad. Oh boy, oh my God, that like got my heart pumping. Pumpkin, actor worth to a movie, what does that mean? Oh, this is what they're worth per movie. Which is, I guess what that said, but I get it now. Tom Hardy is worth more. Yes, Vin Diesel is worth more, fortunately. Seth Rogen is worth less than Vin Diesel. Scarlett Johansson is more for sure. Julie Roberts is less. Really, Scarlett Johansson is worth less than Julie Roberts? Wow, Samuel L. Jackson is, I'm gonna say worth more. Matt Damon is worth more.  Robert Downey Jr. is more. Yes, whoopsies, I did it wrong. Tom Hardy is less.  Vin Diesel is worth more. He's worth less. Denzel Washington is worth more. Angelina Jolie is worth more. Ah, Steven Spielberg. Amy Kellen is worth less. 10 million. Ben Affleck is probably worth more. Clint Eastwood is probably worth less. No! All right, one last round. Robin Wright is worth less. David Heyman. I'm gonna say less, f**k, one more time. Ryan Reynolds, worth more. Robin Wright is worth less. Cameradias, worth more. Oh yeah. He's worth less. All right, well gamers, that was more or less. I'm surprised that they don't have more categories because you can do this with basically everything. Anyway, I'm gonna end this one here. Thank you guys so much for watching. Hope you enjoyed. If you did, make sure to slap that like button right in the face and I will see you guys in the next video. Love you all. Stay cranky. Bye.


I have asthma and 80% of the people who, in fact, we grew up with have asthma.   The money they need to get forever chemicals, PFAS, out of the water. They're deadly, deadly, and a lot of it's responsible because we, the government, and the military has engaged in activities that we didn't realize over the years. In the United States military, every vehicle is going to be climate-friendly. Every vehicle. We're going to go, no, I mean it. We're spending billions of dollars to do it. And it's over. We are screwed. They're not going to maybe like this. We should be paying the Brazilians not to cut down their forest. We got to cut ours down. We got to cut ours down. We got the benefit of it. We've got these third world countries, not third world. Some are. We now have windmills that the blades and those windmills 102 yards long. Hear me? 102 yards long. They can be placed way out in the ocean. And, you know, and by the way, I made it clear to my friends up in the Nantucket in that area. I don't want to hear any more about, you know, like looking at them. He's in, boys. He did it. He said it. They're pretty.


Hey everybody, it's Brian. This is our third cute video using C++. Today we are going to build a GUI application. Just a very simple one. I want to show you what it looks like. And we'll call this GUI. Hit next. And then you see class name, main window, base class, queue, main window, header, source. What are all these things? Well, let's go over them real quick. Main window, this is going to be the name of your class. What this works is it creates a form and it creates a class to go along with it. If you're used to visual basic or C sharp, this is a familiar concept to you. Okay, base class, queue, main window. You can also do queue widget, queue dialogue. We'll cover those in a later tutorial. But today just queue, main window. And the header file will generate the source file and generate form. Yes, keep that checked. Form file name, main window dot UI. UI, that is the extension that the cute creator uses to create the form files. Version control, we choose none. And select the version of cute you wish to use. And wow, we get a lot of stuff here. Let's move some stuff around, see if we can make this a little more visible for you. This is your form. I realize it's kind of cramped due to some space limitations here. Here is your controls. Here are your actions down here. We'll cover actions later. Here's your object explorer and here's your properties window. Now I must apologize for the cramped space here. I try to keep these videos small in pixel size. That way it doesn't take forever to upload them. Alright, and go here and click edit. I want to kind of show you. You see how it instantly turns into an XML file. That's really all UI file is as an XML file. Let's go to design mode and there's your form again. So if you're sitting there working and suddenly it turns into XML, have no fear, that's what's going on. Alright now, this is the structure of your program. Notice it's got the profile. We'll cover that in the last tutorial. Here's your UI file, which is your form itself. Your main window dot H and main window dot CPP. And here's main dot CPP. Let's open main up. You can see this is a standard C++ file. Here's our main function right here. You see it's just generating a Q application calling A with the args. Main window W, W dot show, return A dot exec. This looks strikingly similar to the console application that we created. Except for now we've got a main window and we're doing main window show. What that is doing is generating this main window class that we created. Remember it wanted a class name. Let me pause the video for a minute. My cat needs some attention. Okay, I'm back. Sorry about that. Cat for whatever reason leaves me alone until I start recording and then just wants my attention. Alright, in the main window dot H you can see that we are including the namespace UI. That goes into your user interface elements in the main window dot UI. We'll show you that here in a second. Class main window and here's your main window class. You see we're adding this macro Q object. Remember our last C++ tutorial was the macro tutorial. That's really all that does is converts this into a Q object. Everything in Qt stems from what's called a Q object. You see how this main window is a Q main window. Well a Q main window is actually a Q object under the hood. But in order to be a Q object you have to have this macro which converts it. It gets into some complex stuff in the background but really all you need to know is at the base level everything in Qt is an object similar to Java or dot not where everything is an object. Alright, moving right along here is your public and here are your private. You see here is UI namespace main window and there is a pointer to UI. Here's your implementation file. Here's the constructor and you're saying UI set up UI this. Basically it just creates the user interface and then main window delete UI. One thing you should note about Qt. This is why this framework is so powerful and so popular is that it makes pointers insanely easy to work with because they delete themselves. Now I don't mean the pointers delete themselves. I mean everything deletes themselves. For example, let's go to our main window here and let's just want to filter this out. We type button and you notice how it filters the list automatically. We'll just add a push button here. Go over here, main window oops. Now what it didn't do was add a reference to this button. You notice how your class isn't mocked up with the pointer to a button and all this other hoopla. But if you go in here you can go UI push button, set text, hello. The UI actually holds a reference to the push button class which you know if you hover over you see this little Q push button F1. If you press F1 it'll actually take you to the help file for the Q push button. That is a very helpful feature. Admittedly they've kind of taken that concept from other IDEs. But anyway, let's just run this and let's see it work. I want to show you a couple neat things about the Q forms. Here is your main window. There's your button with absolutely zero coding. You have a button positioned on the form. Some things you should note is you have a status bar and a toolbar. We didn't add anything to them. But they're there. Here's your toolbar. You notice how you can actually move this toolbar around. You can set the toolbar there. You can actually detach it. Let's see if it'll detach. It's right there. There's nothing on it but believe me it detaches. You get all that for free and we're going to cover all that later in other tutorials. The whole point of this tutorial was just to get you familiar with the very bare bones elements of a GUI programming Qt. Here's your button and let's close this. Let's actually make that button do something.  Edit widgets. Edit signals and slots. Now when you click edit signals and slots you notice how things change when you mouse over them. Let's actually mouse over the button. Click and drag and then just unclick over the form. You get this little configure connection. Select clicked and then select show signals and slots inherited from Qidget. In the main window we're going to choose close. What we're saying is we're connecting the push button to the main windows close. When they press click it is fired and the close function is called. You can see how that's graphically represented. You can do that programmatically too but you can do it graphically. It's just easier to learn in the very beginning to do it graphically. Let's go back here and just want to tweak a little something here. Let's just change the text to close. Just to clean it up a little bit here. When you run this and you click close now the form closes. That's called the signal and slot method. That's not unique to Qt programming. That's actually a concept in C++ especially if you use the boost libraries. Signals and slots are like events in Java and .NET. A signal is emitted. That's an event being fired and it's consumed by a slot. The signal here is quickly clicked and the slot is closed. Signals and slots must have the same arguments. You can't do push button with an argument of one to close with no arguments. You'll get a big error message and bad things happen. I wanted to show you those bare bones elements. That's really it. It's very simple. Very easy to use and very easy to understand. Controls. There's a wealth of them here. Just add them in and see what you can do. This is Brian. Thank you for watching. I hope you found this video educational and entertaining.