Until people come and seem to settle down, I just want to show you a video. Hopefully that video will interest you. I just want to show a short video to everyone. It's about one minute video, so I hope you enjoy this video. Among them being able to communicate by performing a unique dance. It informs hive mates where a newly discovered food source is located. Every cycle of this waggle dance roughly describes the shape of the figure eight. Let's rewind and look in more detail. The bee only waggles on a part of its route, the straight run indicated here by the waved line. The secret lies in the direction of the straight run, or to be more precise, in the angle between the straight run and the perpendicular, which in this case is 90 degrees to the left. This tells the other bees that food is available 90 degrees to the left of the sun. If the angle is 60 degrees to the right, they'll be flying 60 degrees to the right of the sun. You must be wondering how honey bees really find their way out. What is it that really tells them how to find the nectar? And this is the simple thing that they actually do. They do this funny little waggle dance and that's how the honey bees really communicate. And let me see if we are able to talk about that in our session today and understand how that is relevant to us. Is there a clicker that I can use? Okay, I'll just keep walking here. So I'm going to talk a little bit about some of the things that are, which I believe are important in terms of how we organize people, how we organize the work around that. And I've taken, the topic of the talk is agile management 3.0, holacracy, what next? Some of you might be familiar with management 3.0, some of you might be familiar with holacracy, and I'll introduce these subjects just so that we have the right context. So, and this is what we are going to discuss today morning here. Now we'll start, I just want to have a very short filter that I want to apply for the context of my talk here on agile manifesto, go to 3.0, talk a bit about holacracy, talk a little bit about lattice, and lattice is a very interesting concept, which I personally find very well aligned to how some of the organizations of the future could actually look like. There is a new movement that's been around for the last few years, and the best hashtag for that is no manager. Now that's a movement that really seeks to eliminate the entire middle management and really puts the top execs in touch with the people in the trenches to make sure that the work gets done most effectively, most efficiently there. We'll analyze some of these stories and understand what does it really mean.  So let's try and look at that.  I think that's the best thing we should be breaking, right? Does anyone know what are these? I think we all know these are pyramids, right? Majestic, huge things, why were they built? Why did they build pyramids? Any suggestions to keep people safe? To keep mummy safe. Well, I like to put it this way, to preserve the dead, right? I mean, as simple as that, they actually build the pyramids to preserve the dead. Now, very interestingly, the shape of pyramid resembles something else, something that we are more very closely aware of, we can relate to it on a day-on-day basis, right? So my question now is, do we know why were hierarchies built? Why did we really build hierarchies? What was the reason why we felt the hierarchies were important there? And if we go back into the reasons why hierarchies were built, we'll have to go about 100 years back in time. And one of the things that we can talk about, I hope it's visible, I've tried to play around with the colors a bit, so I hope it's visible in the back seats there. Frederick Winslow Taylor, the father of scientific management, he was at the Bethelam Steel and he did a lot of work in the start of the 20th century, and he wrote this book on the principles of scientific management that has become the de facto Bible for the entire manufacturing industry for the last 60, 70 years. And one of the things that he said actually in front of a congressional committee was, I can say without the slightest hesitation, that the science of handling pig iron, so he actually studied a lot of how people were working in the pig iron plants, how were they getting motivated, what was the best way, because apparently before Frederick Taylor's time, it was a very haphazard management. There was no scientific basis to that. So he did a bunch of these time and motion studies. He actually very carefully tabulated all the time periods and came up with the fact, how can you get the maximum efficiency out of people?  Now you can imagine where did the discrimination of a manager and the worker start, right? A few years before that, one of the other luminaries in organization behavior, a gentleman of name Henry Fayol, was doing very similar kind of things in France. He was actually analyzing people in the French coal mines and he was trying to understand what is the ways in which the operations in a coal mine would be more successful. And he was also coming up with very similar kind of data points. So what we started to see was a very clear demarcation that there was this dirty heavy lifting work that some people had to be flagmatic fair enough but stupid to choose that as an occupation. And then there was this elite class of people who would typically sit in a corner office and they were really entitled to basically call the shots, right? And this is what really started happening there. So with that kind of a thing, and if we fast forward to 100 years, one of the companies I used to work for and the innocent shall go unnamed, the CEO of that company, it's a few billion dollar company, used to call all of us as this name. His emails used to typically start with this, all managers and overheads. I mean it could not probably get any more insulting than that, right? But that's the reality. We actually ended up creating over a period of time. So what started as a very innocuous observation by Taylor 100 years back that the people who are doing the grunt work and the people who are doing the intelligent work, there has to be a distinction between their abilities, motivation, skills and so on, has over a period of time it became a religion that we actually started creating a hierarchy of people and it literally was that we created so much of overheads in the system around that. Now when I think of the hierarchy, the way I look at hierarchy is they all look pretty shabby, they all look pretty bad there. And my question always is, can't they look a bit less hierarchical? Can't they look a bit more simpler, functional and even a bit more beautiful? I don't know if you have seen this but one of the org charts which has recently been doing rounds on the internet is an org chart of the New York and Erie Railroad back in 1855. And it's probably a very beautiful piece of work actually. One of the things that you will see in this is that it looks a beautiful sapling actually that you have just planted there and you are talking about some of those roots that are spreading out and some of those stuff that's coming out of here. But the biggest problem was at that point in time that this gentleman who made this McCallum, he had a problem because he didn't know how to really do the tracking of the operations very well. So he had to build and he used the technology of telegraph at that point in time that monthly, weekly and even hourly updates on the train operations. 1855, he built this org chart which actually reflected the way work was done in the railroad and he was able to use it to get hourly updates and make sure the operations went on well there. It's supposedly known as the world's first modern org chart. I would call it as the finest as well. And Walt Disney Company that started in 1938 within five years of their operation they came up with an org chart of their own and the best part about that is that org chart reflects how the work was done. You don't really see hierarchy, you don't really see people embedded deeply buried under those hierarchies there. So we started I think on a right footing but then somewhere it got little complex, somewhere it got little ugly. We really didn't understand what was going on. I'm sure you're seeing some of these cartoons on the internet, right? How some of the companies have very territorial hierarchies and how politically charged environments in these companies are and they are literally, I mean, I hold none of these companies in disrespect but I think that's something which are some of the memes that make round on the internet there, right? Interesting thing, one of the company that actually has people shooting out of the hip to each other in the company. How can collaboration happen if there are silos within the company that are fighting with each other, right? So clearly the org charts at some point in time became a little ugly and they got even more uglier over a period of time and what used to happen was that there was a published org chart, there was a published org chart which was supposed to be how the work was expected to be done and then you had those org charts which were invisible. There were deep rivalries, relationships, favors, all the kind of things that actually make the work happen there. So what we are seeing is a situation where we have created a hierarchy to please the egos of people who sit and occupy those costly chairs but then the work really gets done in a dramatically different way, right? And I think the time has come for us to really understand what is really happening here. Is the hierarchy even working after all? Because the work doesn't seem to be getting done because of hierarchy, rather the work is getting done despite the hierarchy because of all these personal relationships that people have because of when I started working several years back, I won't tell when because that will tell my age, but I started working for government defense research and one of the senior scientists, he said, you know how the work gets done in the government? And I said, no sir, I don't know, I'm pretty new, this is the first job I'm holding here. And he said 90% of the work done in government happens because of relationship. And that was not just an eye opener, it was like pouring 10 liters of water on me, it was like I never thought, I said, well, I mean that's what I've been made to believe that the work gets done because everyone has a charter, everyone has a role, everyone has a job description and they're supposed to do that. He said, no, the work gets done because I like you and I will do it for you. And this was like several moves back, right? So is the hierarchy even working or is it some different kind of things working at play here? So let's try and understand some of that stuff there and I just want to go in the context of our conference and software development in Agile. So let's go back to where it all started. When I looked at the Agile manifesto many, many times, from the 12 principles, I found only two principles that really talk about people. The first one talks about individuals and the second one talks about teams. And the most interesting thing about Agile manifesto is they never talk about structure. There is no notion of what is a good structure, what's a bad structure, should it be flat hierarchy, should it be a manager, should there be five levers of manager, should it be... All it says are these two things, build projects around motivated individuals, give them the environment and the support they need and trust them to get the job done and the best architectures, requirements in the design emerge from self-organizing team. Doesn't really go beyond that in giving guidance on how do you really motivate individuals or how do you create self-organizing teams there, right? And the least of it all, it doesn't really talk about the structure or a hierarchy as the way we understand it. So the question then is who really killed the hierarchy because the original Agile doesn't really talk about that. So here's my take on that. It was Crumb that killed the manager, though it did not kill the management. I think that's an important distinction that we should know. It killed the role of a manager as traditionally command and control manager as we have seen from the times of Taylor and Henry Fayol, transforming into somebody who was really controlling things, directing people, and of course in the last 20 years sending a bunch of status reports every week. So it said, well, we don't really need a manager to do all this stuff there because the teams are self-organizing. The teams will be able to figure it out themselves. And then it went on democratizing project management, democratizing the whole notion of management so that the teams are able to rise up to the level where they can manage some of these things, right? And then it created a new nomenclature. It created a new notion of a servant leader who basically was known as a scrum master who was, in a sense, was a traditional manager without the authority that was vested in them, which was really the source of a lot of heartburn and frustration there. So if this is the kind of a thing when we took away the whole authority and really the work is supposed to be still done there, who does the work in the team there, right? So who does the management then? Now, if we see in a traditional project team we have seen the project manager and the team lead, whatever name we want to call it in different parts of the world. They have been taking care of that. And when it comes to an agile team, the expectation is that we are talking about a self-organizing team. There is a servant leader who is a facilitator and that management is not done by the servant leader, but it's done by the entire team, right? The scrum 101 basically. Now the question that I have to all of us is has that really happened or is it a promise hyped enough and oversold to everybody there? Do you believe that this is really happening that the scrum masters have really happened if anybody would like to just share any thoughts at this point in time? But if not, I think one of the simple tests would be to go on LinkedIn and really search for project manager jobs for the companies that claim that they are completely scrum shops. I don't think that has happened there. Do you believe that it has completely happened that we have done away with a lot of them? And I'm sure there are pockets where it's being done there. I do see some people saying that, no, it's not happening there, but I'll be humbly willing to accept if it's happening, because clearly they are doing something right there. I'm just reflecting on things here. So in response to some of these observations, one of the authors, Jurgen, he came up with the new book, his author of Agile Management 3.0, which came two years back. And one of the things that he says is that I believe that Agile Software Development has overlooked the importance of line management. If managers don't know what to do and what to expect in an Agile organization, how are they supposed to feel involved in the transition to Agile Software Development? What is the message of Agile here? If it's just we don't need managers, it's no wonder Agile transformations are obstructed all over the world. So that was the hypothesis with which Jurgen started working on it. And he came up with this whole thought process where he said, hey, management 1.0 was really all about hierarchies from the time of Frederick Winslow-Taylor and Henry Fayol and whatnot. And then he said the second generation of management 2.0 was really all about fads. And he calls Six Sigma and ISO and CMM and a lot of these things as the fads. We just tried to slap it on the structure that was already crumbling. And we somehow wanted to believe for the next 20 years that this thing will be the next silver bullet and they will really help us fix the management part in an Agile organization. And which didn't happen, right? I mean, most of these things were fads and they went away. And then he talks about the management 3.0 as something that he says is really all about handling the complexity part of that. So he brings the whole system of complexity theory in that. He puts a lot of stuff together in saying that management 3.0 and he has created a funny character that he calls as Marty. And he says Marty is really the management 3.0 which encapsulates these six activities that the managers must do in the management 3.0 world. Now, I have a little bit of text on that. I'll not go into in detail here. But what it essentially still does is it does not really do away with the notion of a manager. It does not really create a leaderless or a managerless hierarchy, if you will. If anything, it actually says this is how the managers should behave in an agile environment. And he said there are tons and tons of books written on agile engineering practices and so on but not a single book written on how the agile managers should behave. So that's his response to how it can be done. So this definitely is one step forward where we have tried to legitimize by saying that, hey, we are not against management. We are not against managers. And by the way, this is the fieldbook. You go and run with this. What will tell you actually as a manager, what are you supposed to do to be more effective in an agile organization? So this is one step. It's been around for about three years. I'm not sure if anybody has been able to completely go through that, but these are definitely interesting thought processes. The next one I want to talk about is holacracy. And holacracy has been gaining ground for the last five years. Brian Robertson, who was a management consultant, he runs holacracy.org. And by the way, holacracy is actually a registered trademark. So this is the time I'll introduce the registered trademark, but I'm going to use it as that. So you're free to use whatever way you want to use it, but if you actually have to use it in a commercial way, then you'll have to go and talk to those guys. Now they claim that holacracy is really a real-world tested social technology for purposeful organizations.  It radically changes how an organization is structured, how decisions are made, how power is distributed. That's where something that they are trying to do. So instead of creating distributed power centers, how can, I'm sorry, instead of creating centralized power centers, how can you distribute them so that people who have to take certain action, they have the right level of power along with their roles. It is not a leaderless organization. It's not a leaderless social system. It relies on leadership in some shape or form in a different title, but it does believe that there has to be a sense of leadership there. And the focus is on work, not on people. So this might come as a rather surprise or a shock to some people that, hey, there's not really people-centered kind of a thing. It's really more corporatized kind of a thing. Let's try and understand what it really is. So what the proponents of holacracy say that in the conventional organization, and we saw some org charts, right, how they really reflect the thing, they say they really have three org structures. They have three org charts. The one that is in peach color is the formal structure. That's what is really published on the websites, on the intranet that says, this is what is supposed to be the power lines, how people report to each other. The green one is how actually things are done. That's, sorry, what they call as the extent structure, right? So I may know Raja, but Raja doesn't really report to me, nor I report to Raja, but we are in a different group. But we have an equation that whenever I ask for a favor, Raja never says no to me, and whenever Raja has a favor to ask me, he's there to do that, right? So those are things which are how the work is really getting done. No org chart is going to talk about that. And finally, the requisite structure that says that is how the ideal structure should be, right? We probably don't want it to be very deep structure. We don't want a very wide span of control, and so on. So these are the three images of an org structure in the minds of people, most organizations. And what holacracy tries to do is it tries to create, superimpose all of them into one single thing. So what it should be like, what it is like, and what it is told to be like, they all look similar. And that's the way they basically do that. So they do it by basically dismantling the pyramid and creating instead of that some circles. And these circles are the ones which is basically how the work really gets done. And it has basically all the people in the circle who are all required to be there. Like I said, holacracy is actually not a leadership, not a leaderless social system. It actually requires certain element of leadership to be there. So there are link leaders and different type of terms they have for that. And what's really happening is, sorry, if you don't mind, can you hold on to that because there are even more provocative ways in which this question needs to be answered. So I'll come back to that in a moment if that's okay with you. Thanks. So what is holacracy? It comes from a Greek word, holon, which actually means that you are a whole and a part as well. It doesn't mean that you are always a part or you are a whole. You could be really changing it. It's like you have to really see from a flexibility part of that. All at the same time. There are no work titles, only roles. So everybody has only roles based on what helps that you bring the best product to the table. So this is how you start looking at holacracy and then you say, okay, what is it based on? It's really based on only one single thing, whatever invigorates you, whatever really brings you to life, whatever you really want to do, whatever you signed up to do when you said, okay, I'm going to work at this place. And everyone is a stakeholder and they are able to invest in the same way they are personally most efficient. So it's really taking away from the notion that work is being assigned from somebody at the top, but people are subscribing. It's exactly like you subscribe to. You opt in to certain mailing lists. You subscribe to certain work groups on the internet and you say, okay, I really love their defenses or I might take the role of a sponsor or I might take the role of a mentee or a learner there. And I think the people who are so flexible that they are able to basically have the humility to learn at any stage of their lives and careers will probably be able to succeed much longer there. So these are three things that I definitely cull out from all the study that I did as a part of this and what I'm seeing in the workplace as well. There's a bunch of things here. Well, my laptop has frozen, so I think it's a time for me to stop now. But these were the things I wanted to share here, which are basically my own learnings and perspectives and readings on how I see things happening there. Thanks for listening, but if there are any questions, I'll be happy to take them. Thank you. So I'll give you one case study how they do it in wall. In wall software, it's a peer appraisal system. Everybody appraises everybody and that's how they decide the bonus. And sometimes the bonus have been known to be 10 times their base salary, but that's how they actually do that. So there are examples. I have actually the next page that didn't open. I have like 40 links. If you are interested, you can follow the links. There are a lot of answers to that from these companies. So the question is it might work in... So I have a question. I mean, with no disrespect, I have a question to service industry. Why do we need managers? I don't think the kind of people we are hiring are any less than the kind of people we are hiring for the product companies. We are just giving them a different name. We are just putting them in a different organizational boundary and telling them thou shall behave that way, right? DNA-wise, education-wise, competency-wise, there's nothing to differentiate them to be... that they deserve to be under adult supervision. I would say get rid of those managers and see what happens. Try an experiment and see how that goes. I don't know about service industries, how that is done there, but I can tell about one case study which we have never published, the company I work for. It's actually a BPO company. I mean, we have a big BPO arm and one group in our centers has actually tried that and it was very successful. We have never published those results, but I know from internal sources that in a call center, if you can actually run something in a managerless situation, that's a big deal, right? So at least I know one data point in my company which has been done, but I would not be able to comment on that because it's not in the public domain, the study results at least. In organizations like Gore and Valve, if you are able to get your work self-assigned the way you just described, how does hiring happen? What are you hired for? So in Valve, for example, the hiring decision, they say that it can happen as much as you and I talk and say, hey, I think I need a designer. And you agree with me and say, yeah, I think that project needs a designer. And that's how they do that. They actually do that. Yeah, but then if the designer joins and says, okay, actually I joined for design, but I don't want to design.  See, again, I'm not saying that it's going to be slam-dunk. This is something which is a radically different way of doing it. I think the problem that people are... So let's not stretch the problem more than what they need to be. We are believing that we are hiring the people the most... the people who want to really make a difference there. Why would you want to join a company like Wall Software which gives you so much of empowerment because you have a certain skill set. And then just for the sake of saying, okay, I don't want to do design. In theory, that's possible. But in practice, I'm sure that system has worked for them for the last 15 years that they are able to eliminate those patterns that say, hey, this guy doesn't seem like the guy is here for the real job, right? So there's no interview process. In fact, hiring is the most important thing to do there, actually. But I mean, I don't have any first-hand knowledge to say that. I've only read from the net, but I believe that that's how they are able to do that.  So they have been able to hire people, and they are like a $2 or $4 billion company. Clearly, they have patterns that have made them successful, right? So, sorry, I don't have any data points, but I would like to believe that it's working from them. Otherwise, they would have abandoned this long back. Okay. I think difficult to put a timeline around it. I don't think I know enough to comment on that. But I think there are enough success stories available that if you have to start something of your own tomorrow, if you are an entrepreneur and you want to set up a new organization, I think there is enough case study available to get it going there. So I would say that, and to be honest, I would not worry about it. Frederick Winslow's, Taylor's ideas are 100-year-old. There are still organizations practicing that, right? So in all fairness, there will be a long tail of change. We will still continue to see some of the remnants of the old way of doing things. And some of the people who want to try out with the new stuff will always do it all the time. So I don't think there's a one single point answer, but I would say that if you have an opportunity to change it, change it in your team and try it out and see how it goes. These are very small examples, honestly. So I don't want to give you a number because I don't have a basis for giving you a number. But I believe that if I were to start a company tomorrow, I would be majorly influenced by a lot of this stuff there and I would want to start it with those basics. I don't think any of these companies is using the psychometric profiles to basically look at that. And for that matter, even the traditional companies are not using any psychometric tests or indicators to do that. I think we human beings forget one thing that, with all due respect to MBTI and other ones, I think we have an innate ability to judge people. When we talk to them, when we break bread with them, when we sit down and have eight series of, eight round of conversations with them, I think let's give credit to the people who will be able to figure out who's the right cultural fit for them. I think it goes back to Dave's earlier session today. These are unknown knowns. We have this hardwired in our DNA. 200,000 years of socializing has given us the ability to do that. And some of us may not be able to explain why we did that, but I'm sure these companies have been, I've taken only the successful examples here. So clearly they have been able to demonstrate certain patterns that they have been able to repeatedly build upon. So I would give them benefit if the numbers speak better than opinions, right? So question related to the question that was asked earlier, right? Scaling it up when you are working in a services organization, right? This model, the way it works, LATAS, etc., and also the way you're hiring people. Predominantly in service industry, you see a lot of fresh graduates coming in and then they growing up the ladder. This would work. This model would typically work for people who understand and use the freedom that is provided to them and direct it in the right, and put it in the right direction, right? But typically what I've seen is as you grow, people tend to, if there's no supervision, no direction, people tend to misuse it a lot. I would again, I would want, with all due regards, I would like to challenge that notion there. How many data points do we actually have where we have given that level of freedom to the people and we have seen them abuse that freedom and trust? I think we always give people less credit than they deserve. I mean, look at children, school children. Many times we believe that we have to really watch out for them and really do that, but you give the kids a chance to self-organize something and they come with fabulous things there. We don't have to do all the time there. I would say I would want to make an error of judgment by believing people more than rather believing people less because people might surprise you for all you know by actually, when you give them that opportunity to do that. So I would say that companies that have employed 200,000 people actually have a more business to try these experiments and see how it works for them. For all we know, these might actually sow the seeds for some changes that will make them survive five years down the line there. Because the way I see the current model, I think the current model is only adding people on the top of it and creating more deeper hierarchies that really are, to be honest, meaningless hierarchies. I personally don't know why five people of managers are needed to basically run a team of five people actually. I think those five people should be fired and their salaries should be given to those five people. You will see a different level of motivation on the floor. Okay, thanks a lot. I think I'm running into another speaker's time. Thanks for being here.


This is Mission Control Houston to Colonel Tom and crew, good morning. I do miss the days when I was Major Tom, but this is a pretty good way to spend the days. That sounds great to us. We are now receiving live downlink from the Space Lab module on board Space Shuttle Columbia. In the view we have here, we see payload specialist, John Jacques Favier, who is donning the Canal and Otolith integration study hardware. We see the instrumented vest and the electrodes being placed around the eyes and temple. And payload commander, Susan Helms, assisting. Again, the Canal and Otolith integration study, or COIS, as it is known, is looking at studying how the human vestibular system adjusts itself to the lack of gravity, or rather a microgravity environment. If you can see this in the video, you can see how John Jacques is not reaching the 10 rest, even though it's extended maximally and we're in the proper seat position. Yeah, that's affirmative Susan, we do see that. It's quite a big gap there. Yeah, we're talking almost a foot change here from birth to stay until Space Lab activity. We're ahead of Bob, good morning. And it's out to you, Luca. Would you have the TVD PI confirm that these EMG signals are adequate? My screen here seems to be some cross talk between the bifoth and the trifoth EMG. Bob, the PI would like you to redo the signal verification trying to alternate. This particular test run of the COIS experiment is referred to as the Voluntary Head Movement Test. MPELO Specialist, John Jacques Favier, is following a series of test patterns that's on the black screen that you see there directly in front of him, with PELO Commander Susan Helms operating with what you see in her left hand there is known as a super pocket, which is a remote control device for the COIS experiment. And again, in the view that we are seeing here, PELO Specialist, John Jacques Favier is in performing the COIS or Canal and Otolith Integration Study experiment. And PELO Commander Susan Helms is assisting. Also in the view in the background on the center aisle of the module, we have PELO Specialist Bob Thurst performing activities on the torque velocity dynamometer. With Mission Specialist Rick Lenahan landing assistance. So as you can see here, we have all the appropriate tools to work on our experiment. Professor, if you can come in on TBC number one, there's a shot of Rick, it's kept in this thing really tight, and I think if we're more judicious about our strap then on the year ago we may be able to solve this problem. Okay Susan, thank you. We will be changing the TV view in a moment. And maybe Rick can make some head movements or whatever to simulate the problem.


Welcome to this module on datum precedence and constraining degrees of freedom. Datum precedence and constraining degrees of freedom are important concepts because they help control the function and relationship of manufactured parts. Datum precedence is a fundamental principle in the design and manufacture of mechanical parts and assemblies. It refers to the order of importance assigned to different datums, which are specific points, lines, or planes on a part, which are used as references for measurement and geometric tolerances. When designing a part, engineers must determine which datums are most critical to its function and then use them as the primary references for dimensioning and tolerancing. This establishes a hierarchy of datums called the datum reference frame, which is used for the manufacture and inspection of the part. Degrees of freedom refer to the possible movements that a part can have in three-dimensional space. There are six degrees of freedom, three translational which govern movement in a straight line along the x, y, and z axes, and three rotational degrees of freedom, which control the rotation about these three axes, referred to as u, v, and w. Let's look at each of these three degrees of freedom. Translation along the x-axis. The ability of an object to move back and forth in a straight line along the x-axis. Translation along the y-axis. The ability of an object to move forward and backward in a straight line along the y-axis. Translation along the z-axis. The ability of an object to move up and down in a straight line along the z-axis. Rotation about the x-axis. The ability of an object to rotate about the x-axis, referred to as u. Rotation about the y-axis. The ability of an object to rotate about the y-axis, referred to as v. rotation about the z-axis. The ability of an object to rotate about the z-axis, referred to as W. Following datum precedence to establish a datum reference frame, constrains the degrees of freedom of a part, meaning that it limits the ways in which the part can move or be positioned relative to its intended function. The datums with the highest precedence must be held in a fixed position and orientation first. Datums with lower precedence constrain the remaining degrees of freedom. The degrees of freedom able to be constrained by any datum depends on the type of datum. We'll look at this in a moment. It's important to follow the datum precedence when inspecting a part feature or characteristic to ensure the part will function correctly and meet its intended design requirements. To understand how datum features constrain the degrees of freedom, we will start with a planar feature type. With this part, a plane locks in the bottom surface of a part, which prevents its translation in the z-direction. However, the part can still translate in the x and y-directions. The part can also rotate about the z-axis, but not about the x or y-axes. A plane therefore constrains three degrees of freedom, one translational and two rotational. Next, let's look at a cylinder. This prevents translation in the x and y-directions, but not the z. It also prevents rotation about both the x and y-axes. However, the part can still rotate about the z-axis. A cylinder therefore constrains four degrees of freedom, two translational and two rotational. Lastly, let's consider a sphere. A sphere will lock down motion in the x, y, and z-directions, which constrains three degrees of translational motion. However, a sphere does not prevent rotation. Finally, let's look at the datum precedents for the positional tolerance shown here. B, a planar surface, is listed first, so it is the primary datum. It constrains two rotational degrees of freedom, u and v, which are rotation about the x and y-axes, and one translational degree of freedom in the z-direction. The secondary datum, plane A, constrains an additional degree of rotational freedom, which is rotation about the z-axes, or w. It constrains translational freedom in the x-direction. Our third, or tertiary, datum only needs to constrain the sixth degree of freedom, which prevents translation in the y-direction. This completes the module on datum precedents and constraining degrees of freedom.


What's the best book that you never finished that I never finished that I don't know because I I really I finished almost almost everything it takes a lot for me to give up on a book and See I think I don't finish most of my books. Maybe I finished 10% I'm not sure but your minority Why finish books that are not as good as the next book you could be reading in expected value terms There are probably some long books which I haven't made my way entirely through but Which I returned like let's say Richardson's Clarissa. Mm-hmm, which is a huge book and Which I've never sat down to read from beginning to end So perhaps something like that, but nothing really strikes me is because a good book. I want to finish that book. I really So it would have been a not very memorable book in any case


what Biden's new student loan program would look like for you. If you qualify as low-income, this plan is income-based, meaning that if you make under a certain threshold, your payments will be zero until your income increases. If you don't qualify as low-income, and calculating your payments, this plan protects more of your discretionary income than other income-based programs, resulting in lower payments for you. If you are unable to make a full payment, under this plan, your balance will not go up due to unpaid interest if you're paying the principal. If you already paid off your student loans, congrats! That's awesome for you. This won't affect you at all, except maybe emotionally.


Good afternoon everyone. This is Melissa with the stock switch to that common welcome. I thought I would do an earnings preview on Netflix Why because I have a lot of conviction There's that we're to get conviction This should just be end of the dictionary under conviction. It says Melissa Arma Anyways, uh, Netflix is earnings out tonight I'm not in this stock. I'm not long and I'm not shorted. I'm not in it at all I'm not gonna trade it on the earnings. I'm not invested in this whatsoever I'm I'm I'm not married to the CEO, but I'm reading the chart. Okay But I actually thought that Netflix was going to get over $400 to make new highs before the end of the calendar year at all and almost did it I did say it was gonna be trace this bar before the end of the year and it did The highest bars 389 it got up on December 23rd to 383 within six dollars with five and a half bucks that counts get down here I did not play this gap if I had rated it it wouldn't have rated well and Netflix gaps down tonight I will trade it tomorrow if it rates over 20 points per my golden gap rating system But I don't think it does so my preview call for Netflix on the earnings tonight Again, this is pure pure technical analysis. I'm making the call That it gaps up over 400 and makes new highs. That's my call for Netflix It could gap up to 350 or 360 and if it does it's still a buy But I actually think this is gonna blow over this red bar There's still people that are long the stock still people They'll believe in the stock the sell-off that happened here and did not damage the chart It's proven that it didn't damage the chart. It's holding in here very well It's doing everything right and holding so strong and look what it did since the gap to have back here The medium journey real last year on the earnings, which by the way was exactly a month from today or tomorrow It's it's it's gonna do it It's really something and actually I did the same thing last year last year I called this bullish gap to before it did it those people that were in the room with the only ones or maybe I did a Netflix preview last year. Did I I don't know I don't know if I have it on YouTube I might have I might have said before it happened what I thought but I know I did in the room because because because people were amazed but You know today I'm putting it out there Netflix Preview on the earnings tonight is that it gaps up over 400 and makes new highs and is a bullish Professional gap and one you could buy depending on where it goes and how it sets up on the day There are people that took profits in this back in here, but not everyone did There's a lot of people still in this line to believe in this and the short-term target is $500 and I don't think that's You know, I don't think it's gonna take that much to get there Next you know a couple of months So there it is. We'll have to see I'm doing the trends class today from one to five But I'm gonna watch this a four o'clock and see what it does You know, I prefer to go short rather than go long. Somebody asked me today in the open house Did I did I ever go long? It's not that I never go long sometimes I do but I prefer to go short But I gotta tell you there are some charts that I just love and Netflix is one of them To the upside Netflix the market Facebook I mean, there's some great great great bullish charts and this is one of them But Netflix was the bullish gap the golden gap of the year to the bullish side I mean Netflix got the prize got the prize and This is really just a beautiful chart beautiful chart So there it is. We'll see what happens. We'll do an update on it to you to tonight Maybe maybe tonight or tomorrow. This is Netflix bullish gap preview. It is 12. Oh, too 12 oh two was four hours away from when this even reports But my preview on Netflix my call my call for Netflix is that it gaps up to new highs hits over $400 Go Netflix go Netflix hundred percent conviction in Netflix gaping up on the earnings This is Melissa with the stocks wish calm You would like more information on the next golden gap course email me at Melissa at the stocks wish calm The next class is actually February 8th and 9th If you want to sign up ahead of time and pre-register to secure your spot It's a great time of the year to be trading gaps Email me at Melissa at the stocks wish calm. Thanks everybody and have a great day


Hello, everyone. Welcome to another International Relations capsule for the Shankar AIS Academy. Today, we discuss one year of Russia-Ukraine war, which will come on the 24th of February. The situation today looks rather bleak as there is really no chance of any kind of ceasefire or negotiations in the air. More than that, there have been several events in the last few days which give the indication that both sides are hardening their positions. The most important of these was a visit to Kiev by President Joe Biden for a day. It was a secret visit, unannounced. He flew to Poland, traveled by road and train to Kiev, spent several hours there and returned. This was a very significant visit because it is said that this is the first time that a serving U.S. president goes to a war territory which is not under the control of the American forces. It is true that Kiev is still under the control of the Ukrainian government, but the United States Army itself is not present there. And such a situation for a president of the United States to go is an exceptional event. The message was very clear. What he wanted to tell the world, tell the Russians and tell the Ukrainians where the United States stood and also giving an indication that there is no letter. United States is not going to relent on this question of supporting Ukraine as he called as long as it takes. This is a very major signal at a time when the war is about to enter its second year. There were many expectations that towards the end of the year there could be some kind of relaxation of tensions and could even lead to some kind of negotiations. This was particularly because of the G-20 declaration in Bali. It seemed to indicate that generally there was a consensus in the world that this is not a time for war. And both the United States and Russia acknowledged the contribution of countries like India in shaping the end of the war and beginning a time of peace. But President Biden's visit, his statements there and the reactions to the statement from President Putin all indicate that we are heading for a more difficult time in the war. Because there is no statement of any kind of compromise or any kind of anxiety about the continuation of the war on both sides. So we are in a situation where the United States has declared that it will continue to support Ukraine as long as it is required and also add more substance to their support. The United States has already committed more than 27 billion dollars to Ukraine and this time it was not only that he declared that it would be the 27 billion dollars will not be a limit because he announced a large number of new supporting activities for Ukraine. So additional military package of about US dollars 500 million was pledged. Not only that new supplies of unspecified rocket launchers and other 31 tanks and so many others which have not have been held back so far. So there is a new support to Ukrainian conflict physically providing new materials and support to the Ukraine's war effort. So the US is giving the clear impression that this conflict will continue and he would also involve so the United States would also involve more NATO countries in this and that is why he went back to Poland and again spoke about this situation. As far as the reaction is concerned Vladimir Putin of course straight away reacted very strongly what the United States have done accused the West of starting this war and also pledging that he will go to any extent to secure support for Russia and and defeat Ukraine at any extent. So these two things that the what the President has said and what President Biden has said and President Putin has said should be of great concern to the world as a whole. In addition to all this Vladimir Putin announced suspending participation in the new START treaty which was signed in 2010 by President Barack Obama and President Medvedev. These START talks as you know are limitation of arms talks they are not disarmament talks in the sense of every nuclear power engaged in it but this was started some years ago as a kind of limiting the expenditure of the countries to the barest many. So as part of the death arms between the east and the west several discussions were held by which they decided certain limitations on the arms space and this does not affect other countries as such this is only between the two of them they decide as to as much as they decide as to what kind of lethal weapons they must have whether they should unnecessarily expand and they try to meet the threats as perceived by the two countries. So the strategy arms limitation basically controlled the expenditure of these two countries rather than limit the possibility of war because they will still retain the capacity to destroy each other. So the suspension of the new START treaty is significant from the Russian side but it may not have immediate implication except that this comes in the wake of Putin talking about the use of nuclear weapons. So there will have enough nuclear weapons even if the arms treaty continues but this is more symbolic that the cooperation between the United States and Russia on the question of arms limitation will now be stopped and the US has also supplied 31 battle tanks larger-range missiles and Zelensky the president Ukraine is still not satisfied he is asking for more and more weapons because he thinks that the war is reaching a critical time and if he has more weapons he may be able to defeat the Russian and the president also said that Putin was dead wrong in starting the Ukraine war and support Ukraine as much as it takes. So and he told the president of Ukraine that we continue to believe that Ukraine is going to prevail in the end. So the basically what the president Biden did by his visit was to reemphasize and stress the unwavering commitment to Ukrainians to democracy sovereignty and territorial integrity. And in the statements by President Biden you can also see that he is projecting this as a conflict between democracy and autocracy. So he said that it is now in Ukraine that the fate of the world which is based on rules on humanity is being decided. So they are seeing this he is seeing that it's a wider context and they would naturally want to involve other countries in the conflict and this is the first is United States is openly supporting Ukraine and it is strengthening US NATO defense and continue to give physical support to the Ukraine war which was happening before but it is acknowledged and it has been extended. So the situation has become more complicated because of President Biden's visit and the reaction of the Russians particularly in the context of the arms limitation treaty. That may not have an impact, immediate impact but it connects with the possibility of his wanting to use tactical nuclear weapons in the war if it becomes necessary. He has never ruled it out. So the linkage that he is making between the President Biden's visit and the aggravation of the conflict to the nuclear arms talks. So which means that he is still thinking seriously on the question of nuclear war being waged. That is the other dangerous trend that has emerged. One other development at this time is the role of China. China has of course been neutral in this war in the voting system almost like India. But after the treaty between China and Russia just before the war has certain implications which is that in case Russia is in difficulty or on the point of defeat, China will have to step in and will step in. But the Chinese statements at this time are much more shall we say peaceful in the sense that Chinese foreign minister said that Beijing is deeply worried about the spiraling of the conflict. So China is trying to say that it is not aggravating the conflict and also said that China will provide its wisdom as it were to promote dialogue and to bring about some kind of immediate stop to the war. But on the other hand there is indication that China might, according to the Americans, China might in fact start supplying arms to Russia, lethal weapons to Russia. There's a charge that China denies but the United States has hinted at that. So and among all this there is also this report that Xi Jinping is likely to visit Moscow and that would be of course to seek peace as he says. But on the whole the Chinese intervention if any will have to be in support of Russia in the context of the American situation being, American position being hardened and expanded as a result of the Biden visit before the end of the first year of the war. So Russia has made it clear that it is fighting for the very victory and will not back out because of the new position that the US has taken. And he has said that of course the West has been plotting to attack Russia and this has been denied by President Biden. He said there was no intention to attack Russia in any way. This will completely be within Ukraine and the support will be to the Ukrainian soldiers and there will be no direct attack on Russia. And you may also remember that when Biden traveled into Ukraine a few hours before that a warning was given to the Russians that the President was going to travel to make sure that there is no accident of any kind which may take place during the President's visit. But that did not mean that the fighting stopped even when President was visiting Ukraine. He was in Kiev, there were bombs falling around and it was not a completely peaceful situation. So one year since the war one can say with regret how much happened, it has killed thousands, displaced millions of people, it has disrupted the global food and energy markets and therefore the so-called war between democracy and autocracy that is developing. It might also bring into the war other countries in the event of the war becoming decisive in one way or another. At the moment it is not at all decisive unless the war takes a new turn which now it has taken because of the American support. There was never any decisive victory for anyone. Both sides have had successes, both sides have had defeats. So unless the situation changes after the first year into a new situation things were slowly and gradually cooling down you could say. But at the moment at the time of the anniversary of the war we can see only that this is this is worsening. As far as the other countries involvement of other countries is concerned the reactions you could see that NATO countries are all supportive of the President Biden's initiative. Obviously they were all consulted before he went and also declared announced of his support to Ukraine. So as far as the nuclear matters are concerned President Biden said that it will watch but at the same time Americans are saying that this is a many responsible act. So unsubmutation treaty is really something that causes concern but the Americans are not directly reacting to it because it has no immediate impact on the war situation itself. So another development is that President Putin said that he had heard that the Americans would be breaking the present suspension of nuclear testing. Both the countries have agreed not to test new nuclear weapons and Putin said that they have these reports that America might resume testing of new nuclear weapons and if that happens Putin will also react. So there is really no sign of any kind of way out of the conflict and all signs indicate that the situation is worsening as the first year of the war is completed. China is not likely to intervene directly but we do not know when Regent Pink is going that says he will go in the spring. So it is quite possible that China's efforts will be to somehow control the spiraling effect of the war and there could be some effort by China to bring about a ceasefire on the positions. That is the only helpful sign but at the same time knowing where the Chinese sympathies lie this cannot be taken for granted. So while China may not enter the conflict at any time soon the Chinese intervention if is already in the future will be on the side of Russia that is quite clear that's also not very comforting for us to think. Well as far as India is concerned we have taken a consistent position that this is not the time for war it is time for negotiations reconciliation etc and that idea has been accepted by the G20 countries and now later this year we have the G20 summit in India and therefore India will be particularly careful not to take any sides on this issue and try to bring about some kind of a resolution of the conflict because it is not part of the formal agenda of G20 but considering what happened in Bali where much attention was given to this I suspect that since the war is not going to end in the first year it could be that the agenda of the Delhi G20 summit might be crowded by this issue and some focus will be given to the resolution of it and if G20 can give some guidance to both the parties to end the conflict that will certainly be a plus point for the Indian presidency. So India's own position remains the same obviously apparently there is going to be a general assembly resolution being quoted by France and there have been reports that France is trying to influence India to vote for that resolution in the sense that resolution may be neutral in a certain sense and therefore countries like India could also India and China could also support but that is some discussion going on in New York and elsewhere but on the whole the situation is far from satisfactory it is dangerous and if it continues it will not only affect Russia and Ukraine but also the rest of the world that is where the concern is because of a shortage of food, shortage of energy, shortage of fertilizers and all these are staring the world at this particular time. So the reason need for this to be resolved need to end the war but the way it is going it only looks that it is spiraling further at the end of the first year with no solution in sight which is not a very hopeful sign. So we should look out for new developments following what has happened in this last one week and see whether there is any possibility of any intervention by the G20 or anybody else Security Council of the General Assembly to end the war but the situation is far from hopeful. Thank you. Well the only organization which has that capacity is the United Nations but this war is being waged by a permanent member of the Security Council of the United Nations so what can the United Nations do? So that is why I was saying that possibly G20 would emerge as a kind of grouping which can impact on the situation because it includes the permanent members it includes the other countries from the developed and developing world so it is possible that it may have an impact but the way the situation is developing we do not know what position these countries will take but it is quite clear that the whole world is not divided into two it's not that every country is supporting either Russia or the United States but lots of countries in the middle who are concerned about what is happening in the war conflict and what it has what implication it has for the world and therefore large number of countries in fact almost all other countries are willing and keen to end the conflict but there's nothing that they can do because two permanent members of the Security Council of the world so as organizationally there is no possibility of an impact but the G20 I believe would be of some impact on the situation when we have that conference but that of course is several months away but effort will be continuing by the only body it's not a committee the only principle organ of the United Nations which is entrusted with international peace and security is a security council so no one else in the United Nations has the mandate or the ability to handle this and the United Nations becomes completely paralyzed when two permanent members are facing each other because they can veto each other all the time and therefore as a body as a body entrusted with peace and security security council is completely ineffective thank you


What is going on guys welcome back to the channel and I appreciate you being here today I bring you a Destin 2 Top 5 Epic Plays of the Week but before we get into the video guys if you do enjoy leaving a like really does help out and if you are new around here and enjoy daily Destin 2 videos be sure to subscribe but let's get straight into this top 5. In at number 5 we have a clip sent in by Brett with a H. The clip was titled Salt Rock Blues, a fine description indeed. In at number 4 we have a clip sent in by Kevin28 and 8. If it's the mountain top you are chasing why do these not better set up? In at number 3 we have a clip sent in by Compa Tiger all I can say is damn the sooner this chess piece is nerfed the better. In at number 2 we have a clip sent in by Cryptic Core who gets a ghost in the night's meadow this is obtained via getting 7 kills without taking any damage from any source. In at number 1 we have a clip sent in by Taro. Some people are just unstuck all over the Chathrone, this dude is one of them people. But guys that is the end of top 5 epic plays of the week. If you enjoyed the video leaving a like really does help out if you are new around here and enjoy daily Destin 2 videos be sure to subscribe and if you never want to miss a video I upload turn notifications on by hitting that bell button but again thanks for stopping by and hopefully I will see you on that next one there.


Here's the latest update, published in 2011. Evidence for the acne-promoting effects of milk. Though acne is an epidemic, skin disease in Western countries, afflicting more than 85% of adolescents, acne is absent in non-Western populations which do not consume milk and dairy products. They go on to review all the studies which I've already talked about. By million years of evolution, they conclude, the growth signaling system of mammalian milk is exclusively, and physiologically provided to the newborn only during the nursing period. The chronic abuse of this mammalian postnatal signaling system by widespread cow milk and dairy consumption in humans of industrialized societies has been proposed to be the major cause of the acne epidemic and the more serious chronic Western diseases. There's lots of diseases associated with unrestricted growth. So what should we do? There are two solutions to this problem. The restriction of milk protein consumption, or we somehow engineer milk that doesn't have these effects. Either way, both restriction of milk consumption or the generation of less insulin-affecting milk will have an enormous impact on the prevention of epidemic Western diseases like obesity, diabetes, cancer, neurodegenerative diseases, and acne.


Anna Sultan of Sokoto, the President-General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, Sa'ad Abu Bakr has advised Muslims to seek sound knowledge of the tenets of other faiths to enable them to cohabit peacefully with other people of different religious persuasions. The paramount tradition of Rula and other speakers gave their advice at a thank annual Usman Dan Fodio lecture series in Ilori, Bakr Asti's capital. Under the theme, The Concept of God in Major World Religions. To come together and bring in this lecture to Ilori is one of the ways of imparting knowledge, educating our people. It is important to spread knowledge because it is one thing to hear what of God being spread is another to work with it so that we become better human beings. The best and the most authentic way of trying to understand the concept of God in religion is to try and understand what does the scripture of the religion have to speak about as a concept of God. Its excellency enjoying us all to always uphold the teachings of Islam and be steadfast in our faith and believe in Allah as the only one God so that in hereafter we shall all be admitted in Jannah as our final. Hello hope you enjoyed the news please do subscribe to our youtube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates


The abstract line 0.8co0.1mn0.102 cathode suffers from severe bulk structural and interfacial degradation during battery operation. A 3-in-1 strategy involving ZrB2 as a dopant was developed to address these issues. This strategy involves doping Zr and B into the bulk of line 0.8co0.1mn0.102, which helps stabilize the crystal structure and reduce microcracking. Additionally, during high temperature calcination, some of the remaining Zr at the surface combines with the surface lithium source to form lithium zirconium coatings, which physically protects the surface and reduces interfacial phase transitions upon cycling. As a result, the 0.2 mole percent ZrB2 line 0.8co0.1mn0.102 cathode delivers a discharge capacity of 183.1 mAh g-1 after 100 cycles at 50 degrees Celsius, 1C, 3.0 to 4.3V, with an outstanding capacity retention of 88. This article was authored by Zey Fong, Ranjasha Rajagopalan, Shan Zhang, and others. We are article.tv. Links in the description below.