Aloha and welcome to Hawaii Together on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. I'm Kili Iakina, president of the Grass Root Institute and today is March 30, 2020. We're going through the coronavirus crisis right now across the world. And today I've got a guest who will allow us to understand this situation much better. Is the government doing too much? Is the government doing too little? What should the role of government be? We're going to discuss these issues and others today with Mary J. Ruert, who happens to be an eminent author as well as speaker today. She joins us from the state of Texas. Mary Ruert is a research scientist and ethicist and a libertarian author and activist. She received her BS in biochemistry in 1970 and her PhD in biophysics in 1974. And both of those are from Michigan State University. She subsequently joined the Department of Surgery at St. Louis University. Eventually she left her assistant professorship there to accept a position in the commercial world with Upjohn Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1976. She became a research scientist there as a senior research scientist. Dr. Ruert was involved in developing new therapies for a variety of diseases, including liver cirrhosis and AIDS. Dr. Ruert eventually left Upjohn in 1995 to devote her time to consulting and writing. Her award-winning international bestselling book, Healing Our World, demonstrates how the ethical application of libertarian principles has historically created harmony and abundance. I'd like to welcome to our program today Dr. Mary J. Ruert. Mary, welcome to the program. Well, thank you. I'm glad to be here. Well, we're glad that you're joining us today and giving us some insights into a very hot issue right now. Would you just at the outset tell us what are we facing today and what we call the coronavirus crisis? I know there's a lot of misinformation out there and I know you've corrected much of that. How would you describe what we are going through as a country and as a globe today? Well, I wish I could be very, very specific, but there still are a lot of unknown. So take everything I'm going to say with a grain of salt. We are still in a place where, especially in the United States, where we don't have enough testing kits to really know what we're up against. But this virus is kind of an offshoot of the SARS virus, which we dealt with many years ago. It appears to be more deadly, especially for people who have respiratory issues. And that's because it tends to, for reasons we don't totally understand yet, it's more likely to cause pneumonia. And of course, that's very dangerous for people who have lung problems. And we have a lot of people today who do have lung problems. So that's where, I guess that's where most of the deaths are coming from. Here in the United States, we actually have more cases that have been confirmed than in any other country, including China. And I think I may have sent you a link to put up on your recording there to, you know, the people can go to in order to see exactly what the daily count is. The thing is in the U.S., we still have, most of the people who have contracted the disease are still trying to recover. Whereas in China, for example, most of the people have already recovered. If you do the math on that, the death rate there was about 4%, which is considerably higher than with the regular flu. But again, there's some uncertainty there because we don't know if everybody who died actually died from the virus and were tested for it. So again, there's some uncertainty in the numbers. And I just wanted to throw that out. And there's a lot going on. You know, the private sector has really geared up to do the FDA required studies on old drugs that might be useful and to develop new things like new vaccines. And for the most part, it's going to take a while because of the FDA regulations. The FDA has backed off on some of them, which, of course, is good for the timeline. But there's a lot going on that both the FDA and the CDC were involved in that has made the situation difficult to evaluate. And the biggest blunder probably was on the test kits. As you probably know. Let me pause right there for a moment before specifically going into the test kits, which I definitely want you to address. But overall, when you take a look at these government agencies that have been involved in the coronavirus response, the World Health Organization, the FDA, or the CDC, how do you assess their response so far? I know this is almost armchair quarterbacking. But what is your thought about that as you take a look at how they were responding? Well, the FDA and CDC certainly have really slowed things down, especially in regard to the test kits. But they've also not just slowed down the test kits that you might get in a hospital, but home testing as well. And the availability of test kits in the US has been hampered in a way it shouldn't have been hampered, because of course the Germans have plenty of test kits that they would love to sell us. And the FDA, I think it was in right around February 4th, early February, basically said that if a private company wanted to make a test kit, it was OK, but they had to base it on the CDC's test kit. Now, the problem with that is the CDC is not a commercial operation. So it couldn't make test kits very fast. It doesn't have an automated assay, which you really have to have if you are going to do significant numbers of assays. They sent out 90 test kits around February 6th to 7th. And then it was found that something was wrong with the reagent or the test itself, and they all had to be recalled. So in this country, we just didn't have test kits very early on, which created problems. Once the CDC test kit was found to be faulty, many companies geared up to get a test that they thought could get FDA approval. And they actually had a home test kit, which was very good, because if people are staying at home, that's the way to test them. Unfortunately, the FDA wasn't too excited about that, and they basically made the company's recall tests they had already sent out to people's homes. And they had to send letters telling the people that they would not be able to process their test kit, which of course, I'm sure a lot of people were very unhappy with that. So it was very disappointing. First, why is widespread testing and the availability of test kits so very, very important? And what's the problem we're facing? That's a very good question. That's a very good question.  Now, it would be very important to know, is this due to this new virus or is it due just to the regular flu? Because we can't really calculate what the percentage of deaths are if we don't have that number. And what's happening is people who are dying and yet haven't been tested are being the death certificate I'm showing coronavirus. So I don't know how they're gauging that, I guess they're guessing. And I guess they have to put down something. But that's what's causing a lot of the uncertainty. For example, here in the US, about 1 out of 4,300 people have been tested. In South Korea, it's 1 out of 17 people. So in South Korea, they have a pretty good idea of whether people are dying from the virus or just the ordinary flu or just because their lungs are so compromised, they finally give out or they have a different type of infection. So, you know, they have good numbers there. We do not. And I have talked to a lot of my friends who have experienced a very severe flu this winter. And one has to wonder if they actually had the coronavirus and maybe not the regular flu. Because there's increasing evidence. And again, I take it with a grain of salt. There's increasing evidence that it may be that the virus did not originate in China but originated here. And yeah, I think the next few weeks will probably get a better idea of whether that's actually true or not. You know, for the layperson out there just listening who doesn't have the technical background, take the issue you just raised as to where the origin of the coronavirus really is. How do you sift through conspiracy theory and actual fact at a time like this when there is so much that is being circulated on social media? Yes. Well, actually there is a way to do it. Or how can I say? There's a way to have a best guess, shall we say? So for example, a coronavirus just doesn't automatically appear where there's no similar viruses unless it's transplanted from somewhere normally. So if you look at the different variants of viruses in different countries, you can get a feel for whether that country was infected internally or externally. If that coronavirus is the only virus like it in that country, it probably was a transplant. If you have many variants of the virus, you know, and it's a SARS virus, so, you know, you can look at things that are similar. If you have many variants then you might suspect that the virus comes from a country with many variants. That would be the normal conclusion. Obviously it's not what we call proof, but, you know, there's some things we just can't be sure of. So, and there is, I did see some information out there by an epidemiologist that claimed he had looked at different countries and that the U.S. actually had the most variants. So if that data is correct and I don't know him so I can't vouch for him, but if that is correct then we would suspect it does come from the U.S. Now, the other part of the conspiracy part is that I have heard and I have a hard time believing this particular assertion that the CIA actually designed this virus in North Carolina and released it to somehow foil Trump's reelection. I have a hard time with that one. I don't have any evidence for it, but maybe somebody else does.  This is a time definitely when we shouldn't put much stock into things for which we don't have evidence, which goes back to what you were saying earlier that we need an evidence base to know exactly what the condition of the spread of this pandemic happens to be. We're going to go to a break in a couple minutes, but just before we do that, I know you've done some deep philosophical thought on this. What should the role of government be at a time like this and what should it not be? Well, it certainly shouldn't interfere with the private sector creating treatments or test kits or things of that nature. And one of the good things that's happened is I think after this test kit, the Bollackle, the FDA has backed off on a number of things. For example, it used to really prohibit telemedicine to a great degree. Now that we're all at home, they're saying, yeah, yeah, that's okay, you know. Also, you know, doctors, for example, that in Texas can't prescribe in California unless they have a license. And another thing that's happened is doctors are being allowed to cross state lines in their practice. I think that's a very good thing. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to do that. And hopefully some of these changes will stay in place. You know, people will find out, yes, less regulation actually works pretty good because it's so, I think most people don't realize how so deadly these regulations are. For example, in my book, Death by Regulation, I talk about how in the early 60s, it took about four years to go from the lab bench to the marketplace for a new drug. Today, it's 10 to 14 years. That's a big, big difference and there's no increase in safety. So all this delay in this extra time and money that's put into drug development and people die waiting for new drugs, all this is totally wasted. Well, it sounds as though there is a silver lining in all of this and that is the reduction of regulations that have been harmful. And perhaps after this episode is over, we will simply proceed without putting those regulations back in place. In the state of Hawaii, we have a critical doctor shortage and the fact that we can now practice telemedicine across state lines and practitioners can come here is something that meets a need that we had even before the coronavirus crisis. We're gonna come right back after this short break and I want you to stay around because Mary Ruert has a lot more to tell us. I'm Kili Akeena on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. Don't go away. We will be right back. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm the host of Finding Our Future here on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm here every other Tuesday from one to 1.30 p.m. Here on this show, I cover issues around sustainability, global issues that matter for young people for future generations and other social justice issues. So please join us. It's live streamed on Think Tech Hawaii and also up later on YouTube. Welcome back to Hawaii together. I'm Kili Akeena, president of the Grassroot Institute and we're on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. If you happen to be watching this program live today, you may very well be sheltering in place at home here in the state of Hawaii or across the country. We are trying to respond to the problem of the coronavirus now. And there are many responses that are being put forth by government. Mary J. Ruert has been evaluating this for quite a while. And one of her claims, or not claims, but one of her premises is that we've got to operate on good information. Unfortunately, there's a lot of bad information out there. I'm gonna go back to Mary now and ask her to tell us what are one or two pieces of misinformation that are circulating now and how can we respond to them? Mary? Well, probably the biggest concern I have is when our president talked about the anti-malarial drugs and said that they actually worked. Well, you know, we don't really know because the studies were so small and they weren't consistent.  And in one case, there was no placebo. So, you know, you're kind of guessing. And the other study actually indicated that there might have been a small effect. But, you know, it was like five patients versus seven. It's a small number. You know, it's not what we call statistically significant. In other words, we can't be sure it's not just the chance distribution with such a small number. So, this is a problem. And what has happened because of all that is that people have been stopped piling this drug. And it's not a drug that's, it's not widely available in the US because we don't have a lot of malaria. But it's used for other things. For example, for lupus and other autoimmune diseases. So, there was a story about a 45-year-old lady who was using one of these drugs to control her lupus. And she got a letter from Kaiser Permanente saying, we're not going to fill your prescriptions anymore to this drug, you know. And thank you for your sacrifice. So, this woman is being put at risk because they're according the drug under the assumption that it's going to help patients that have the coronavirus and withholding it from someone that it's very critical for. So, this is the kind of bad things that happen when you have misinformation. So, this is the kind of thing we really have to be careful of. And, you know, there are many drugs in testing. I mean, there's so many, I probably can't even talk about all of them, such as drugs to prevent HIV, which presumably work against one virus. Maybe it'll work against another. Companies are testing their whole library of compounds against this virus to see if it works.  And other older drugs that may be helpful, but are they? We're not absolutely sure yet. So, you know, we're still at that stage where we have to be careful about assuming. Mary, there are different theories as to what the basic frame of reference should be in responding to the coronavirus crisis. The dominant one is that we need to isolate people and we need to stop the spread of the virus. But there also has been talked with the development of a herd immunity, letting the virus spread within the broader population so that much in the way we have done with chicken pox or measles as a people group, we develop an immunity. Now, these two approaches or these two perspectives could result in different responses. Can you address this to any extent? Well, you know, really, it's bottom line is everybody has to take responsibility for their own health. And everybody has to decide, based on their medical condition, is should they be going outside? Should they be staying at home? And I say this because it appears that different people are at risk. For example, if you have lung issues, you're at a very high risk. Because if you go into pneumonia, you may not be able to come out. Whereas a person who has adequate lungs or excellent lung function might not have to worry so much. People who have compromised immune systems need to be concerned. And one of the links I sent you before the show was about the nutritional things you can do to boost your immune system. We should all do that because it's very important to keep our immune systems up. And of course, there's no Bible on how to do that, but there are some things that you can do. Getting adequate amounts of vitamins, for example, and iodine sink, things like this. There's also some evidence that, and again, not certain evidence, but some evidence that ibuprofen might be something that you shouldn't be taking if you get the virus. Again, I'm pointing out that it's not proven yet, but there's some evidence to indicate that as well. So everybody's got to make that decision for themselves based on their own condition and what they think they can handle. Well, that's an important point you bring up, and it's not discussed very often in the public media. What should the role of individual liberty be in deciding how one responds to the coronavirus crisis? I know you have some thoughts on that.  You want to be sure that you are doing the best you can for yourself. And if you do that, you're less likely to get sick, even if you're exposed. And if you do get sick, you're more likely to recover. And again, this goes back to all the things that we've been dealing with for decades, not being a smoker because that compromises your lungs. You know, getting your aerobic exercise, so you keep your lungs in good shape so that they can process oxygen, you know, exercise, all the usual things. And of course, not being overweight because that gives you a tendency towards diabetes, heart disease. All these things are risk factors for this virus, and really probably most viruses. There is a shortage of medical facilities, a shortage of hospitals that we're being told is part of the problem and our inability to respond as effectively as we need to. But isn't it the case that some of the shortage has been brought about by government policy, such as certificates of need in order to establish hospitals of work? Can you tell us a little bit about what a certificate of need is and how that may have played into creating the kind of shortages we have today? Right, well if you go into a state that has certificate of need or an area that has it, you have to basically go up against the hospitals that are already there and you have to tell them why your new hospital is necessary. And if the other hospitals don't agree with you, you're unlikely to be able to get a permit to build your hospital. And there's been studies done on the outcomes in hospitals in certificate of need states. And basically what happens is in those states, people are more likely to be released prematurely and have to come back because they relapse. So that's a pretty severe penalty to pay for certificate of need. And of course it makes perfect sense because if you have fewer hospitals, you're going to have to rush people out to make room for the newcomers. And this is especially true in a crisis like the one we're having. And equipment, same thing. You know the FDA had all these restrictions on ventilators. If you, for example, took a ventilator and now you were monitoring it via Bluetooth, you had to get approval for that again. So the FDA and wisely I think has released a lot of these restrictions on ventilators so that hospitals can modify the ventilator if they need to in these fairly minor ways or use things like CPAP machines if they need to to make up for maybe not having as many ventilators as they want. You know, we're still early in the United States here so I don't know if that's gonna be enough. We'll have to see. It's, we're still working without the test kits to a large extent. So we're not really absolutely certain where we are. Are there medications that show promise for providing relief from and even a cure for the COVID-19? Yes, in addition to the anti-malarial drugs that we've talked about in the HIV preventative drugs, there's some evidence that angiotensin inhibitors and blockers could be effective. Again, we're not sure. I, you know, I'm just kind of making sure that everyone understands that we're in the early stages here. There's also been some successful infusions of plasma from people who have recovered because presumably these people have antibodies to the virus and there have been some successes, anecdotal work, it hasn't been a full study. That's, that may be good. Stem cells have also been used. There's reports of some successful anecdotal studies with that. Also heat is effective, but it's gotta be a pretty high heat. It's, you know, our body temperatures in 98.6, the heat that's needed is about 133 degrees Fahrenheit. And one of the things that works in most respiratory infections is steam. And so, you know, that's very easy to do. You can boil some water and, you know, inhale the steam, especially like with eucalyptus oil or some other, a Vicks Vapo rub has eucalyptus in it. That's another way to go and possibly eliminate some of it. I personally have a essential oil mix called thieves that young living makes. And I use that on airplanes and things. It's supposedly the recipe that was used during bubonic plague times that the grave robbers put together so that they could rob graves without getting sick. And so it's got some antibacterial, possibly antiviral properties. It's got clothes in it and some other essential oil. So, you know, there's a lot of, a lot of herbal things that are supposed to work too. I can't say I've tried all of them. There is actually a theory that increasing your nitric oxide content in your blood would be helpful. And you can actually measure that pretty well with a saliva stick. And there are nutritional supplements out there that will increase that. So, there's a lot of different things that could be tried. Now, Mary, we've got a couple of minutes left. The time has gone by so quickly. What's a potential best practice? I know it's kind of early in the game, but looking across the world at responses by different governments, what is one or two best practices that you think we need to bring here to the United States? Well, basically, our medical system is over-regulated. And I say that having been involved in, at a number of levels, and because of that over-regulation, it's very, very hard to get something new out. It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of money. And again, as I said earlier, most of this doesn't improve safety and really doesn't increase effectiveness that much. And at least in the evaluations I've done, the studies I've seen, it really is maybe 10% at most. And of course, we're at 800-fold increase in cost. And that's where the cost of pharmaceuticals really comes from. It comes from the cost of getting FDA approval. That's the driving force behind increasing drug prices. And most people aren't aware of it. Having been in the industry, I am. So, if people want to learn more about that, of course they can check out my book, Death by Regulation. Or if they'd like to learn more about how less government generally gives us better results, more prosperity, more peace, more abundance, they can check out my book, Healing Our World. There's actually the 1993 version of Healing Our World is actually in my free library at my website, ruart.com, R-U-W-A-R-T.com. So, and of course anyone can contact me through my website and I do respond to all my emails. So, if for some reason you don't hear from me, just try again. Great, well, Mary, thank you so much for being with us today. This was very informative and we certainly will be posting this presentation and so anyone can have access to it. My guest today is Mary J. Ruart, PhD and ethicist and research scientist with tremendous insights into what's taking place with the coronavirus, what governments should be doing, shouldn't be doing and ultimately how we can take responsibility for ourselves and come up with a solution. Thank you for being here today. I'm Kelea Akina, President of Grassroot Institute. We are on the Think Tech Hawaii broadcast network until next time, aloha.


If five Republicans go with Democrats, then I'm out. So it's whether, probably so. The yeas are 216. The nays are 210. The resolution is adopted without objection. The motion to reconsider is laid on the table. The office of Speaker of the House of the United States House of Representatives is hereby declared vacant. For the first time in American history, the Speaker of the House has been removed. And as you saw, he knew it was coming. He saw the writing on the wall, especially after Democrats made it clear that they were not going to bail him out. And at the start of this whole saga on Sunday when Matt Gaetz said he was planning to file a motion to vacate, even he didn't think he had enough votes. But a lot changed since then. And one of the biggest factors here was Democrats choosing to not sit this one out. They joined Republicans like Matt Gaetz and voting to oust McCarthy. Now, here's what Jayapal said in the lead-up to the vote. They are destroying our institution. What does that mean? Does that mean voting present? Like, how is this going to play out? We are not voting in any way that would help save Speaker McCarthy. So either present or voting against us. This does impact Democrats in a sense, right?  You're trying to pass the farm bill. You're trying to pass the... Democratic problem. As much as anybody out here might want to make it a Democratic problem, this is not a Democratic problem. This is a Republican problem. They supposedly have the majority. They should be able to pick their own speaker. Our speaker is Hakeem Jeffries. It always has been. It was for 15 rounds. It will continue to be. So does that mean... I'm here that just nobody trusts Kevin McCarthy. Nobody trusts Kevin McCarthy. Nobody trusts Kevin McCarthy. And why should we? And that lack of Democratic support right there is ultimately what I think sealed McCarthy's fate.  So let's listen.  That doesn't work. Look, I'm a conservative. I'm a Republican. I'm a conservative. One gets things done. Look, I know we live in... Our government's designed to have compromise. But look, we're in the majority. You don't surrender. Yeah. So I'm not sure if he said that before or after he already knew that they weren't going to save him. But either way, it didn't seem like he had much of a choice here, right? Democrats let him sink. And that he did. And McCarthy was talking a really big game in the lead up to this vote. For example, he dared Matt Gaetz on Twitter to file the motion, tweeting, bring it on, to which Matt Gaetz responded, just did after he officially filed the motion to vacate. And, you know, when you watch the video of McCarthy, all of that arrogance that we saw from him on Sunday and Monday was gone. He looked deflated. So something changed. And I think that he realized, oh, this isn't as sure of a bet as I initially thought it was, right? On Sunday, again, Matt Gaetz even didn't necessarily seem like he felt like he had the votes. But that changed. McCarthy did not initially expect this to be successful. But I mean, he rolled the dice and in the end, he lost.  Now we will get to some reactions in a moment. But first, I do want to show you the lead up to the ousting because the pro McCarthy Republicans need this to say we're absolutely pissed. And Republican Chip Roy had a very strong message for Matt Gaetz. Matt me and caught me a rhino.  Look, I spent a lifetime fighting for limited government conservatism. I have laid it all on the line. I have not seen my family for two days in the last 30 days.   You know why?  Those sound like fighting words to me. Love to see this. Now on the house floor, it was also very heated. There was a lot of attacks specifically on Matt Gaetz. He had to absorb the blows. They would attack him. He'd then respond. And these were attacks that were coming from Republicans, right? And many of them pointed out how Gaetz was doing this all for attention, which I do think is true, right? And one of them pointed out that he was fundraising off of this. And this was all about him and the show and political theater. But Gaetz actually had some really solid responses to these Republicans. In particular, when they called him out for fundraising off of this, he had a very good response in my opinion that actually led to some Republican booze. And when it comes to how those raise money, I take no lecture on asking patriotic Americans to weigh in and contribute to this fight from those who would grovel and bend knee for the lobbyists and special interests who own our leadership, who have, oh, boo all you want, who have hollowed out this town and have borrowed against the future of our future generations. I'll be happy to fund my political operation through the work of hardworking Americans, 10 and 20 and $30 at a time. And you all keep showing up at the lobbyist fundraisers and see how that goes for you. I reserve. Look, credit where it's due. That right there was an incredible response from Matt Gaetz. And I don't like to ever give him credit, but that right there is how it's done, right? Any lawmaker who's going to put other politicians on blast for corruption, I'm gonna applaud that. But aside from the attacks on Gaetz, the pro-McCarthy Republicans also tried to make the case for McCarthy. And it came off as very fake. Like, we're not gonna look at all of these videos, but at least Stefanik was very overly encouraging of McCarthy. He's just a boy who cares about America. It was so disingenuous, but somebody who, if they were going to have any effect would have been an individual like Jim Jordan, who a lot of far right Republicans initially wanted to be speaker in place of McCarthy, but he did not support this ouster. Jim Jordan was making the case for McCarthy. But when it's all said and done, even that was not resonating with Matt Gaetz because look at the way that he shut down what Jim Jordan said about McCarthy. We have done the oversight that we're supposed to do because of our oversight. We know that parents were targeted by the Department of Justice. Because of our oversight, we know that 51 former Intel officials misled the country weeks before the most important election we have. And because of our oversight, the Disinformation Governance Board at the Department of Homeland Security is gone. Because of our oversight, the memo attacking pro-life Catholics has been rescinded. Because of our oversight, unannounced visits to Americans' home by the Internal Revenue Service has stopped. That happened under Speaker McCarthy. And on the third one, on this side of it, we know there's a big old ugly bill coming at the end of the year, all kinds of spending, all kinds of garbage in it. We're still in that fight. Frankly, to Matt's point, we don't know how that one's gonna shake out. But we do know this. We do know this. On Saturday, we didn't take the Senate's bill.  We didn't take that bill. And it was a tough position he was in. There were five options on the table last week. Option one was to send a long-term CR over there that would have leveraged the 1% cut, something a bunch of us voted for. Both parties couldn't get the votes for that. When second option was to focus on the one issue the country now is completely focused on, the border issue. We couldn't get the votes for that one either. But when the Senate tried to sentence that bill, he said no to it. I think the speaker has kept his word. I know my colleagues and friends are saying different. I think he has kept his word on those three things that we talked about on January 3rd, frankly that entire week. He has kept his word. I think we should keep him as speaker. I yield back. Gentlemen from Florida is recognized. The problem with my friend from Ohio's argument is that many of the bills he referenced as having passed are not law. We are on a fast track to an omnibus bill. And it is difficult to champion oversight when House Republicans haven't even sent a subpoena to Hunter Biden. So it's hard to make the argument that oversight is the reason to continue when it sort of looks like failure theater. Failure theater is a very good line. And there was also a moment where Matt Gaetz talked about the sham impeachment inquiry into Biden. So in trying to do all of this, I do think that the Republicans who are saying that Matt Gaetz is operating at the behest of Democrats, there is something to it. I don't think that that's Matt Gaetz's intention. I do think that he's doing this because he just wants the eyeballs on him. He wants to flex. But I think that this is genuinely helping Democrats. So Republicans who see that and point that out are correct to be pissed. But the problem is that all of these failures that Matt Gaetz is talking about and he's correct about, well, it's likely going to be exacerbated because McCarthy was the most far-right speaker that Republicans could possibly get. So it's hard to imagine a more hard-line conservative getting the gavel that would appease an individual like Matt Gaetz and even others like Lauren Boebert who initially didn't want to vote for McCarthy to become speaker voted against this because I think they saw that it's McCarthy or someone who's more moderate. And this is all going to plunge the entire house into further chaos because other conservatives are going to be jockeying for that position. There's going to be a power struggle. There's going to be factionalization. In fact, these are all things that Matt Gaetz warned people about back when Paul Ryan was speaker and the far-right back then wasn't satisfied with him either. If we take Paul Ryan off the field right now, instead of being able to finish strong in the 115th Congress, we will shatter into a bunch of factions fighting against each other for power. We got enough of that in Washington already. Oh, how the tables have turned. And now because of Matt Gaetz, the Republican Party is going to be further factionalized because of this. I mean, we are seeing open infighting where Chip Roy saying, come to my office and say that to my face, mother. It's so weird. Now, this power struggle is going to be incredibly entertaining. In fact, it's already very entertaining. And I do want to get some immediate reactions because I think it's safe to say that Fox News was very, very pissed off. And the meltdowns that we saw from them were great because as they are denouncing this move, they're also simultaneously praising Democrats like Nancy Pelosi for no reason. But they did it. So let's watch. Former President Trump weighing in on truth social, saying quote, why is it that Republicans are always fighting among themselves? Why aren't they fighting the radical left Democrats who are destroying our country? Judge Jeanine. I'm furious. First of all, we're without a speaker. This is historic. Something like this hasn't happened in well over 100 years. And now what we've got is total chaos when the Republicans are playing out there in fighting on national television in a historic way, instead of fighting Joe Biden's policies. The one time we are up in virtually every metric as it relates to the Biden administration, you've got the Republicans going out there and showing how dysfunctional they are as Matt Gaetz is engaging in fundraising. And I got to tell you something. I am furious. There's no question that this is something that they have been trying to do for almost nine months that McCarthy's been speaker. And the truth is that they've done a lot in Congress. They've got a lot of bills passed. The fact that the Senate doesn't want to take them. They've done a lot in terms of oversight. And now you've got the Democrats. This is a crazy thing.  This is like the devil is in the middle of all of this chaos and Donald Trump is worried. Why are the Republicans fighting with each other like this? They shot themselves in the foot. And by foot, I mean head. It's okay. So they broke promises. I had to go find out what these promises were, right? He promised to use the 2022 baseline numbers as appropriation numbers for this year. And he didn't. Are you angry? He promised not to let bills pass with support of more Dems than Republicans. Maybe he didn't. Are you pissed? I don't know. Not to take up a bill with unanimity among Republicans on the House Rules Committee. McCarthy denies making the two latter promises. So who's telling the truth? I don't know. I'm not sure that I care. Because I'm with Trump on this. I mean, we're talking about this instead of the border, instead of crime, instead of inflation. Every time the Republicans implode, you just give the Democrats more cover than Gerald Nadler's underpants. We have serious issues right here, right? And instead of uniting and fighting for the people of America who consents that this country is going in a really bad direction, we're doing this. I get it. It's a historic event. But it's like one of the few historic events that I don't care about. This has no effect on our viewers. Does it make our streets safer? No. Does it make our borders real again? No. Does it make our gas prices go down? No. Does it make a sound in fury signifying incompetence? And I get my sense is this was a personal thing. It's a personal thing that's being acted out publicly. And you know what?  You hear a lot about the impossible job of managing a caucus like this. He only had a five seat majority. That is the same number that Nancy Pelosi had. And she managed just fine. Nothing like this ever happened when Nancy Pelosi was in charge. I cannot express how much I am loving this. Because if our government isn't actually going to serve the American people and do anything for us, the least they can do is entertain us. And they're doing that. And I am thoroughly enjoying all of this. And the best part is that this is only the beginning because we are about to watch the shit storm of the century ensue as the GOP in the House scrambles to find someone to replace Speaker McCarthy. And that is going to be a very, very difficult task that might not happen in the near future. So here's what to expect in the immediate future. NBC News reports, the office of the speaker has been declared vacant. This does not immediately trigger a new speaker election. However, because of a succession list, McCarthy submitted to the House clerk in January. That list is in public. In other words, we're not going to know who's going to be the temporary speaker. Since 2003, House rules have required the speaker to submit a list of names to the clerk of members to act in the case of his or her vacancy. According to rule one clause eight of the House rules, the next person on that list shall act as speaker pro tempore until the election of a speaker or a speaker pro tempore. So whoever is first on McCarthy's list will take over a speaker in an acting capacity. This is a different situation than in January when the House started a new session and could not start any legislative business until a speaker was elected. Because it was the beginning of a new Congress, the House needed to elect a speaker in order to swear in members and pass the rules package. So because there's going to be an immediate, albeit temporary successor named by McCarthy, this means that electing a new speaker now isn't as urgent as it was back in January when nobody could even be sworn in until the speaker was named. In other words, this battle could go on for a prolonged period of time. And the longer it takes for them to find a new speaker, the more strain it's going to put on the House GOP, the more unserious it makes them look to the American public. And I think that's good. I think this is a good day in America where the Fascist Party is openly cannibalizing itself and demonstrating to the American people that they are in cable of governing.


The discard phase of a narcissistic relationship. The purpose of discarding is for when they see you as not being efficient enough for them anymore. They believe that they have completed their mission. The goal of the narc is to show you in the beginning what you really want. They then use this as a tool to distract you and keep you in close proximity.  They will criticise you for everything you do or say and point out your every flaw. They will destroy any potential friendships or sources of relationships that you might have. They will prevent any exit strategies. By this point you are exhausted.  Why would anyone want you now even the narc? But the narc cannot take this risk. No matter how ruined your life is, there are always going to be good understanding people. So unless you are dead or at least barely able to live, the narc isn't going to take this risk and will stick around until the end. The narc is nothing more than a guide to your doom and destruction. And believe me they take a lot of pleasure from this. When I was with the narcissist I built up a fantasy in my head. I used to tell myself deep down that they have this amazing personality and they are very likeable and great to have a conversation with. In reality they were the exact opposite. But I knew exactly what I wanted in my mind. And so I made myself believe that this is what they are when they weren't. They know they are boring empty people. That is why they have the love bombing stage, manipulation, gaslighting. They will research idols, your favourite celebrity and begin to emulate them. They make you believe that they are this amazing beautiful person over time you will begin to see through the illusion they have created. This is when they will use manipulative tactics such as gaslighting, denial, projection and blame shifting. They want you to believe that everyone else sees this amazing person and it is just you who does not see this. The truth is they use this illusion or pretend to be someone else because they have nothing more to give. That is the whole point of the illusion to make you believe that they do have more to give. I know it's hard to accept this reality after everything they've fed you in words. You think that they must be withholding something somewhere but that is literally all that they had to give you and you can wait around for the rest of your life but you're never going to see it any more than that. It's a game to them, a simulation. They will use future fake in to make you believe that you will have this great life for them in the future even while they haven't taken any steps to make it a reality. A lot of them don't even have the means to do it. Narcissists love attention from anyone. Though most likely have multiple sources lined up on their social media already before the discard phase. They need these interactions to reinforce their value which is determined by other people or external sources. The narcissist will see the relationship with you as a temporary contract until they find someone that they perceive to be better. What I've noticed from my past relationship with four narcissists is that they almost always end up with someone far worse. In the devaluation phase they will prepare new sources of supply ready for the discard phase. They know it's only a matter of time until you take a step back from their abuse and no longer provide them with supply or discard them. They know you're going to figure them out at some point. Once they have their multiple sources lined up and ready to go that is when you will lose your value to them. They have drained you of your energy and love. You have become a low quality source of supply to them now. The narcissist is no longer getting the same charge as they did when they first met you. Now they have obtained all of these other options with people who have a full battery. People who they haven't abused or manipulated yet. People who don't know the real them or what their agenda is. All of these new sources satisfy the narc's ego. They see themselves as better than you now.  You are superior to them in many ways. You are self validated. You don't need external sources to validate you. The narcissist is heavily dependent on a new source to provide them with supply, attention and validation. You are always genuine to the narcissist. You never intended to play games, manipulate, lie or cheat on them. You have always remained true to yourself and true to the narcissist. That is why you are superior to them. They cannot live without draining you of your positive energy.  But you should not feel any empathy for them. How can you feel empathy for someone who has all of these sick twisted behaviors? Remember that next time you feel any pity for these people. Remember what they did to you and remember the emotional wreck they turned you into.  They are not willing to accept responsibility for where they are in life. They need someone to blame and they will target the kindest people they can find because they are rich in positive energy and they are easier to manipulate as they are empathic understanding and forgiving people. The discard phase is inevitable with these individuals. It doesn't matter how attractive you are inside or out. If someone isn't capable of seeing it, what difference does it make? Narcissists want you to feel like you are not good enough for anyone. The reason for this is because deep down they believe that they are not good enough for anyone. Their belief for themselves is accurate though. How can a manipulative abuser be good enough for anyone? No one deserves to be treated like that. You are attractive. You have a good personality and this is part of the reason why they don't like you. They have an inferiority complex and they are very competitive. They cannot reach your level so they tear you down to their level instead. Their goal is to make you so messed up until you are no longer good enough for anyone else after they are gone. So make a conscious choice to emotionally disconnect and disassociate from them. Respond to yourself rather than reacting to their toxic and negative beliefs. This will allow you to maintain the desirable qualities which you possess. Qualities which an emotionally healthy person will desire from you. Let them do their little discard phase or leave them and then be happy. They will never contribute anything good to you or your life. They have no capability to build so their only other option is to destroy. You may look at the narcissists now and think that they are so good looking or you remember the fake personality and positive vibe they displayed to you in the beginning of the relationship but you are going to see things differently within a few weeks and especially after a few months. You might see a picture of them in a few months and you are going to be wondering what you ever saw in them. I am not just talking about physical looks although they do tend to let themselves go and stop taking care of themselves. These people are boring and empty they can't even hold a conversation and even if they could it would just be about themselves. They are low quality people who have nothing to offer. You might not see it now because you are blinded by the love and fake personality which they originally showed you but in time you will see them for what they really are and they are always worse off after they leave you. Although they will try to create an illusion that they are doing better this is all part of their manipulation. The narcissist never moves on they are always thinking about you. If they see you trying to move on they will even stalk you for months or years after the relationship. It becomes an obsession because they don't know how to stop thinking about you. You must work on your self love. Following a narcissistic relationship you are likely to be self love deficient. I would recommend any childhood traumas which have led you to be attracted to the narcissist try to heal them. You are involved with the narcissist because they found a vulnerability or an opportunity to create a vulnerability within you. Narcissists are not attracted to emotionally healthy people so create boundaries work towards self love and don't worry about the narcissist. They will see you with self esteem self love and self respect and they won't want to deal with you anymore. It's too difficult to target an emotionally healthy person. You can't trick or deceive that type of person.


Hello and welcome to the session. In this session first we will discuss implications. Here we shall discuss the implications of if then only if and if and only if. If the statement is of the form if p then q then this can be written in the following ways like p implies q or p implies q. This symbol is for implies. The next form in which if p then q statement can be written is p is a sufficient condition for q. Next is p only if q then we have q is a necessary condition for p then we have negation q implies negation p. Consider the statement if x is a prime number then x is odd. This is of the form if p then q. So here the statement p is x is a prime number and the statement q is x is odd. So this statement can be written in five forms. According to the first form we have p implies q that is x is a prime number implies x is odd then for x to be odd it is sufficient that x is a prime number then x is a prime number only if x is odd then for x to be a prime number x is odd is a necessary condition x is not odd implies that x is not a prime number. Next we discuss contrapositive of a statement. If a statement is of the form if p then q then its contrapositive is given by if negation q then negation p. Like consider this statement again if x is a prime number then x is odd here this is the statement p this is the statement q. Now the contrapositive of this statement is given by if negation q that is if x is not odd then negation p that is then x is not a prime number. This is the contrapositive of the given statement. Next we have the converse of a statement again if the statement is of the form if p then q then its converse is given by if q then p. Consider this statement if x is a prime number then x is odd converse of the statement is given by if q that is if x is odd then p that is then x is a prime number this is the converse of the given statement. Next we shall discuss if and only if this is represented by this symbol it means the following equivalent forms for the given statements p and q like the first one says p if and only if q then next is q if and only if p next one is p is necessary and sufficient condition for q and vice versa then this can also be written as p if and only if q. Consider a statement p given by if it rains then I stay at home and a statement q given by if I stay at home then it rains then p if and only if q is given by it rains if and only if I stay at home. Next we shall discuss validating statements here we shall discuss some techniques to find when a statement is valid like if the statement is of the form p and q then to show that p and q is true we will perform the following steps according to the first step we have we show that the statement p is true and in the second step we show that the statement q is true. So if we show that both the statements p and q are true then the statement p and q would be true. Next if the statement is of the form p or q then to show that p or q is true we must consider the following like the case one which says that by assuming that p is false we show that q must be true then by assuming q is false we show that p must be true. The next we have if the statement is of the form if p then q then to prove this statement we need to show any one of the following cases the first one says by assuming that p is true we show that q must be true or the second case that we can show is that by assuming q is false we show that p must be false. This first case is the direct method and the second case is the contra positive method then if the statement is of the form p if and only if q then to prove this statement we need to show if p is true then q is true if q is true then p is true. Then next we have method of contradiction if we have given a statement p then to check whether the statement p is true what we do is we assume that p is not true that is we say that negation p is true then we arrive at some result which contradicts our assumption and thus we can conclude that p is true. Next method to check the validity of statement is using a counter example by this method we can show that a statement is false this method involves giving example of a situation where the statement is not valid and such an example is called the counter example the name itself suggests that this is an example to counter the given statement let's consider a statement if x is an integer x square is even then x is also even this is of the form if p then q here the statement p is given by x is an integer and x square is even statement q is given by x is even we will try to prove the given statement to be true using the counter positive method in which we assume that q is false that is we take that negation q is true that is we say that x is odd then we need to show that negation q implies negation p this is what we need to show we have assumed that negation q is true now we will show that negation p is true since we have taken that x is odd so we can write x as 2n plus 1 for some integer n then x square would be equal to 2n plus 1 the whole square which is equal to 4n square plus 4n plus 1 now this number is odd due to the presence of this one so we say that when x is odd we get x square is also odd since we are getting that x square is odd so we can say that negation p is true hence we get that negation q implies negation p thus the given statement is true so this is how we check the validity of a statement using different methods this completes the session hope you understood the implications and validating statements


from San Diego, California. It's theCUBE, covering Cisco Live US 2019. Brought to you by Cisco and its ecosystem partners. Welcome back to theCUBE. Lisa Martin with Stupid A Man, rounding out day one of our coverage of Cisco Live in San Diego. We're pleased to welcome Tara Sumner, the Senior Manager of Global Product Management at CenturyLink. Tara, welcome to theCUBE. Thank you. Thank you both for having me. So we've had a number of folks from CenturyLink on theCUBE over the years.  We are. You've got customers in over 60 countries, but this is no longer your grandfather's CenturyLink. That's right. Tell us more about it. So we're focused in the next rollout or the next phase of CenturyLink for moving from a telecommunications company to a technology company. And the division that I work in for UNCNC, the Unified Communications, that's where it's at. That's where it's all going to take place and having a partnership with Cisco is key for us to get from that telecom space to the technology space, for sure. All right, so bring this inside a little bit. Unified Communication and Collaboration, Cisco obviously a strong presence in that space. Lots of people have used Webex and understand the various VoIP phones and everything that they do there. What particularly brings Cisco and CenturyLink together? Where is it? Engineering work, field, go-to-market, where are the pieces? Sure, and it's all of those, right? It's all of those. What's been very nice is that Cisco has embraced the idea of being a platform and not a siloed individual product line. And so for a service provider like CenturyLink, for us to be able to embrace that same philosophy of the platform of services, what that means is that our engineering and field ops folks, our operations teams do all the hard work on the back end to make sure that we have established all of the right security, the right network, the reliability, the global scalability of our specific platform of services and being that leader in telecommunications. And then we're able to lay that Cisco platform on top of it. And what happens then from a product management level is once you've established that foundation, it's really plug and play. The customer calls and says, I need calling, I need meetings, I need whatever it is they need and we build that solution and very quickly can put those components into play and get them to use the service right away. So we were all at Enterprise Connect. We were just talking about that Stu and I hosted theCUBE there just what a couple of months ago, and it's such an interesting, it was an interesting event because everything is centered around communication. You can't have a great customer experience without having a phenomenal and very connected communications platform within an organization. You can't have great satisfied employees that they don't have the connectivity that they need. So really looking at enterprise communication and collaboration tools as table stakes for any organization, because in any industry, there's a competitor right on your coattails ready to swoop in if you're going to be making any mistakes. Absolutely. And now as we look at the waves of change with respect to connectivity and the explosion and expansion of 5G, the proliferation of the amount of mobile data that's going to be video traversing networks, massive demand placed on any organization to be able to deliver communications extremely quickly and extremely securely. Yes. Talk to us about some of the waves that you're going to be writing and helping customers to mitigate with respect to these new demands for high density, high performance connectivity. Sure. So if we talk to customers, as you know today, one of the biggest things is it's all about security. We have a massive and really super intelligent security department, a century link, and it's kind of cool watching all the various projects that they get into because they're so passionate. And not only are they passionate about it, they're adamant that we make as much of a connection secure meetings, any kind of information secure that we possibly can and we've mitigated any risk possible. And then you take that and you have to communicate that information, but you have to also be able to showcase the various solutions that you have, all of the Cisco platforms that you have. So what we have also done is, we've taken that platform of services from Cisco and we put it in the hands of our operations folks, our sales folks, our field techs, our executives, our middle management group, and every one of them knows then how to quickly use a team's application from their desktop. They all have it on there and I don't have my phone with me. They all have it on their mobile device. So it's very familiar, it's very quick and it's always on, right?  The minute you don't have it, it drives people crazy. So it's a very valuable tool for us from a product management perspective to put these tools in the hands of our internal users who are the voice to that customer. So when the customer calls and goes, oh my gosh, I don't know what's going on. I've been there before. Let me help you out and let me do that very quickly. So I want you to help us understand how are you helping customers keep up with just the rapid pace of change that's going on here? As Lisa mentioned, Enterprise Connect, the themes I was hearing, very similar to what we're hearing here at the show. Cloud drastically changing architectures, AI and ML and fusing itself into all of the environments there. It feels like from a customer standpoint, every time they go to a role and it's like, oh wait, hold on, didn't you hear about the new thing and the new thing and the new thing? And there could be the tendency to like, oh wait, I thought I was down the path yet, I constantly need to hear about yet another thing. Absolutely, so yes, you're right. It's a constant game of catch up, if you will. Have you tried the new app? Do you have the latest version of X, Y and Z? What we're trying to do is also bridge that gap because we have tremendously intelligent and savvy customers where it used to be, if you build it, they will come and now it's, no, no, no, don't even build it. Let them tell you what your market needs to drive. The customers have the most unique uses for the technology these days and we have to keep up with that. So we let those customers help drive where we go from a product standpoint but at the same time, I've got traditional customers who are saying, okay, somebody told me I need to get to the cloud. Okay, I can help you with that. We have a very unique perspective on how we bring customers on board, how we get customers to adopt the technology and truly the way that we do that is with the human touch, right? We concentrate completely on our customer experience from end to end. So if you give us a call and you say, here's a problem I need to solve and here are the components I have sitting in there today. We design the solution that you need for your business needs and then we walk you through that step by step and when we're all implemented and ready to go, we're still going to answer that phone, we're still going to answer your emails and take your calls and say, what else can I do for you? How can I help? How do we want to expand? So it's really that customer service on top of the focus of customer experience that makes CenturyLink, I think, still very unique in the industry because we care that what we are putting in your hands as a customer is something that not only you will use, but you'll talk about in a very positive light. So given that everything you talked about, connectivity, and what we don't have connectivity, you feel like you've lost a limb or you've lost sight or hearing. It's that disconnect that is just these days that feels so strange, but customers need to have definitely, and that was a theme I think that we hear at every event. We also heard it at Enterprise Connect. It's not just AI, it's humans and AI, but speed is essential for any industry, especially those that are undergoing any sort of transformation because they've got to stay ahead of their competition. So how do you balance that? How does CenturyLink balance that need for speed and also deliver a customer experience that's unique, as you say, that has that personalized element that it sounds like I'm hearing? How are you leveraging tools like automation and AI and machine learning to help CenturyLink deliver that customer experience but quickly? Well, we're doing lots of things. Some of the things that we're doing is that automation from the first time they click on the website to say, what's going on at CenturyLink? Oh, they've got UCNC.  And oh, by the way, if you need some help, we've got the training videos. We've got a phone number for you to call if you really need some human explanation of, okay, I just can't figure this out, I can't get that. So the automation is key for sure. When you're talking about speed, as you know, if anyone has teenagers around and they're using gaming systems or you're watching Netflix or whatever it is that you're doing all day, you are eating a ton of bandwidth. And so what's nice about working for CenturyLink is that, well, we're the provider of the bandwidth. So we get to see the trending of what products are consuming the most of that bandwidth, and we very quickly can prioritize and say, this content delivery network needs more. Holy cow, what is UCNC doing in Latin America or APAC or AMIA? They're consuming a ton of bandwidth. We need to allocate more and put a priority on that. And so that's different than other competitors who aren't also service providers because then they have to go back and negotiate. No, no, no, my services really do need more bandwidth and I really do need some priority and be nice to me and I'll take care of it, right? So we have that ability at CenturyLink to do that very quickly. So Tara, CenturyLink's had a long partnership with Cisco, very deep relationship. Cisco's been talking a lot about their transformation. Remember a year ago, when you think about Cisco 2030, it's not as a networking company, it's a software company. Give us your assessment as a partner what you've been seeing in Cisco and also bring us in a little as to how CenturyLink is, as we said at the beginning, a different CenturyLink that we might have thought of in the previous generation. Sure, and it's a good question. It's, for me, I've been at CenturyLink for, as I mentioned, about 15 years and I've gotten to witness and be a part of the initial relationship with Cisco that we had up until today where I helped manage that relationship and it really has transformed from a relationship to a partnership and it's no longer just they give you something and you go and implement it. Now it's truly the give and take, right? You have these conversations but we also have the relationships with several of the employees of Cisco to say, okay, I understand you're putting this into the network, tell me a little bit more about that. How is that unique to a service provider versus an enterprise? How can I make that a better value proposition for my customer base because of CenturyLink? And we get the reciprocal communication back and forth. Whereas, you know, years ago it was, here you go, here's what we're giving you, go ahead and put that into the network. So it's really been exciting for us at CenturyLink and certainly I think for our Cisco folks because it's easy now. We know each other very well. We know so many of the employees of both companies that when I pick up the phone, you know, it's, hey, how's it going instead of, oh, I need to speak to the vice president of XYZ, right? So it's truly been a great transformation in a partnership from that relationship to that true partnership where there's give and take. And if we have a question or we think, you know, I've got this amazing customer who has this bizarrely intelligent ask, I want to help them with that. I have no hesitation to pick up the phone and call my partner and say, you're going to love this. Help me figure out how to get us there. And it's really been working quite well over the last few years. I'm kind of excited to see how far it goes in the next few. So it sounds like it's evolved into a much more strategic partnership. How is that an accelerator or a facilitator of CenturyLeaks transformation to a technology company? It's both of those things. It's a complete accelerator, but it just makes sense when you have partners who have that very similar vision that you do from a strategic company, you look at that and think, okay, you know what? This is going to fit very nicely into my strategy, my mission statement. And it's going to be a much easier transition for all of my colleagues as a result because then they can see, oh, that's exactly what we need to do. We need to take these steps to move into that technology mode. And now you're showing me how to do that with your strategic partnership with Cisco. It's very fun. Fun is good. Tara, thank you so much for joining Stu and me on theCUBE this afternoon. We're going to keep our eye on CenturyLink. We appreciate your time. Absolutely. Come and visit us any time to get. All right. First to you, Miniman. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE. Day one of our coverage at Cisco Live has just come to an end. We want to thank you so much for watching and catch us starting tomorrow morning, day two from San Diego. Thanks for watching.


funny no-name boy for teacher will you ever do more music album reviews and videos format like the one you did about you for sure man for sure rushes 2112 I really enjoyed that video yeah I would love to man I just we just got overwhelmed with what's going on in the last two years and I just needed to and I still need to do my part to make sure I stand on the right side of history because this content is out there right some people might not appreciate what we're doing right now some people might okay but I can I can guarantee you I can guarantee you just the way I some of the content I created in the last 15 years and 15 years ago I was getting a lot of flak from saying some of the things I was saying even 20 years ago when before I was blogging I started like 16 years ago or so right I was getting a lot of fly people pop pop pop trash talking and stuff like this I can guarantee you I can guarantee you 10 15 years from now as long as our content hasn't been removed from the net people will look back at some of the stuff that we've been creating and they will watch read and listen at an awe of what was going on and it will be a testament to history and we have to make sure we're on the right side of history so once the storm passes I will 100% go back to doing some of that stuff I actually had one laid out to do for tool I don't know if you listen to tool but I had one laid out to do for tool but I haven't had the time to take the outline that I created to layer it with the mathematics that is required to analyze tools music okay but we will and of course I want to do one for Boney M


So free kick now coming, DR Medtart will handle it. Big opportunity to bounce back here if you're the Mustangs. In a timely fashion, boy would it be. Here comes the kick, it's a low liner. Look out. Dangerous play for this time being and banging it home. It bounced back fashion for the Mustangs. Alex Morales weighs no time at all. And the goal of the year for Stevenson, 1-1. How about it? Alex Morales, look at the shifty. Look at the placement and look at the finish from Morales. Goodness gracious.


The main thing, the most important thing for successful outreach anywhere is to ask the partner what they would like you to do. And then you say, well here's the kind of stuff that we can do with that and you begin a dialogue and you co-create the project that's going to happen. But it all comes from asking the partner what they want instead of saying, I'm teaching social justice and I want to come in and save your world. Which is, again, accidentally coming in as the oppressor, which I have done enough times that I feel strongly saying don't do that because I've learned the hard way. There are effective in the definition of what works really well and the Motley Crew, which stands for Multicultural Outreach Tour because it's been going on for 17 years. The Motley Crew is the annual tour that takes a collection of stories from around the world based on a theme for that year and tours to between 19 to 21 different elementary schools in Whatcom and Skagit County during spring quarter. And that's a really effective outreach because it only costs the amount of gas in the education system. And that's what we do a lot of outreach with. The funding isn't there, but the need is greater than ever. The funding is less than it ever has been. The need is greater than it ever has been. So the key with this community outreach is to be very clear that this is about the process. But our community outreach is very much based on service learning because it's with my students. So they are learning not just about the organizations we partner with, but they're learning how to do this kind of work with the population. And there have been many different kinds of communities that we've worked with. Some have been very successful. Some have not been. And the key is to pick yourself up and keep asking what is needed.


OK, this video is obviously part of a series. Be sure to check out the description of this video for a link to the full playlist. Today we're going to be creating a shell script, in particular a bash shell script, and we're going to pass it some arguments. So in previous videos, we used the read command so the user could type stuff in on the keyboard after being prompted. But let's say we just want the user wants to be able to run the script and already give it its arguments, its parameters. We can do that. So let's go ahead. I'm going to use Vim as my text editor, whatever text editor that you feel comfortable using. I'm going to type, just call my script arg.sh. And now this is a bash shell. So I'm going to start off with my shebang line, which is pound, exclamation mark, forward slash bin, forward slash bash, telling it what interpreter to use. Now let's just say I want to have the program say hello to the user. I can say echo hello. And then how do I get the username? Now we could use the read command, or we could also use a combination where we can check the value if one is given at the argument on the command line to use that. And if not, then to ask the user. But we're going to skip over that part. We're just going to go straight to assuming that the user has entered in a name. So at this point, I'm going to say hello, dollar sign. And I'm going to say one. And I'll explain that more in a moment. So now I can save that. I can make it executable using change mod and then giving the name of the script. So now that script is executable, it can be run. If I just run it like so dot slash, again, the dot slash means current directory saying we're writing a script that is in the current directory. It's not in a system path somewhere or anywhere else. And if I enter, all we get is hello because we didn't give it a name. So let's say I say hello, Chris. It will say hello, Chris. What if I say hello, Chris Smith? It still only says hello, Chris, because each space is considered a new argument. And what we have here, we actually have three arguments, if you will. And they're all numbered in the order that they come. So 0 is actually what you've typed here, the name of your script. So if at any point you want to let the user know what script you're running, you can utilize that, which comes in handy in some scripts. This would be 1, and this would be 2. So we have some options here. I can go back into my text editor. And I can add an line here. I can say, echo, you are running. I'm going to put this inside quotations. The script $0. Go back out after saving that. Run the script again, hang up our a few times to go through my history here. And you can see here, it says, you are running the script, and it gives the name of the first argument, which is whatever program you're running. And then we said hello, Chris. So we still have this hello, Chris. Let's say we want to say Chris Smith. There are two options I can do here. I can go here, and I can put in quotations this. So now it's ignoring that space. It's seeing that the quotations are here, and seeing this all as one argument. Boom. So now it's saying, this is the script you are running. And then it's also saying hello, Chris Smith. If I go back into my text editor, another option would be if I wanted to separate the first and last name or the first and second argument. I can also say $2. And now if I run this without the quotations, it says Chris Smith because it's echoing hello, argument one, and argument two. And you can sort of forth and so on as many arguments as you want. And in this particular way, you're looking at the arguments have to be put in a certain order to do it this way. So obviously, if you want the user input a first name and the last name, they have to put them in the proper order for this particular way of doing things works. Two other things you can do. I'm going to go here and say, oops. Echo dollar sign. Remember dollar sign means a variable. And these are just special variables. I can say dollar sign and the at symbol. And I can say dollar sign and asterisk mark, the little star mark there. Now if I run my script, you'll see that we have a few different things here. We have hello, Chris Smith, and hello, and then Chris Smith and Chris Smith. Both of these denote to use all parameters excluding the first. So one on. So I can have as many arguments as I want here. And you can see that they output, both of those will output the same thing, all arguments after zero. If I go back into my editor here, let me change the second one to dollar sign pound, or number symbol, or whatever you call it in your country. In the US, we call it pound. I know other countries call it other things. And now I can hit Enter here. And it tells me how many arguments I have. It says eight. We have one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. Excluding the first, which is zero, which is the name of your script. And again, quotations around stuff will change things. This is now all three. These are considered one argument. So now if I hit Enter, you can see that it says six, because two of those have been put in with another one. So we've removed two arguments. So let's a quick look at giving parameters or arguments at the command line for your shell. Again, you can use the if then statements to check to make sure arguments have been entered. And if not, you can then use the read command to request them from a user or output a message telling the user how to properly input them. I thank you for watching. As always, I hope that you have a great day.


Welcome back to the session on latex. So, this brings us to the end of topic one and in this session, we will just recapitulate what we have learnt till now. So, in session one, we learnt what latex is. We saw that latex helps us to create articles, books, reports, etcetera with ease. We also learnt the process of generating a PDF file. In the second session, we listed the steps for installing latex on Windows and Ubuntu. We listed out some latex editors. We also listed out some ideal features of an IDE. Well, does this slide ring bells in your mind? Yes, it is quite familiar, is not it? This is what we saw in session three and we created our first latex document. Notice that we have written slash latex command. Just try it out and see what difference does it make. Finally, in session four, we learnt to organize our content into sections, subsections, paragraphs, chapters. We also created table of contents and we examined this using an article and book classes. Thank you. Have a nice day.


Hello everyone, welcome back to another chat GPT tutorial. In this one, I'm going to show you the two what I believe are the best ways to detect plagiarism. If you're an educator or a teacher and you want to see if somebody might be using some extra help, here's a way to do it. Here's two ways, in fact.  You don't need to use this to cheat. Anyways, let's get on with this morality aside. Here we go. The first method is by hugging face. This is a GPT2 output detector demo. Please note that that says GPT2, and that matters. So while I hit the button here, you're going to see that it gives me a real percentage of 3.44 and a fake probability of 96.56. There's no absolutes in this. So busting somebody or getting busted is still, there's still some wiggle room in there. But it does a very good job. That said, it's using the GPT2 version. And right now, chat GPT is up to 3.5.  The second version or the second tool I like to use is GPT0. This is a more recent tool. And this one was created by Edward Tian in Princeton. He's a student at Princeton University. And yeah, he created this.  It's going to run here at the top. What does it do? It checks for perplexity. And it checks for burstiness. These are the two things that it looks for. Perplexity, as you can read here, is the randomness of the text. It's a measurement of how well a language model, like chat GPT, can predict. And what did I say? Yeah, predict a sample text. And yeah, and burstiness is basically it's just checking, well, anyways, you guys can read it, but it exhibits non-common items that appear in random clusters. That's the gist of it. That said, I clicked on chat GPT, get the result. It's going to take a few seconds, and I will come back when it's ready. All right, welcome back. So the result is GPT has finished analyzing. Your text is most likely to be AI generated, busted. All right, guys, again, there's no absolutes in this. And you can argue either way. But we did a full test on it. It gave us a score of 19.009, which doesn't mean a lot because who knows what that means on any X and Y graph. But note that it gives us a score right up to the end of this little line here. So it's about 96%. Same as the hugging face GPT2 detector. Thanks for watching.


Do you ever consider that they may have found historical evidence that points to the time of when the Great Pyramid was built? Why would no evidence exist that tells us of when this mega wonder went up and more importantly why? We generally accept the theory that this structure was built during the dynastic Egyptian period around 5000 years ago. Even though overwhelming evidence exists that suggests the dynastic kingdom at the time would have been technologically incapable of such a feat of engineering brilliance. It just doesn't add up, but what does make sense is the stories that we dismiss as mythology the stories of gods and of flying machines. The timeline that we accept is that of 5000 years because we are told nothing exists to suggest there was an advanced civilization before this period of development and culture, but consider the Great Flood and all the sunken cities and pyramids across the globe. Consider the Sumerian and Egyptian King list that predates the dynastic period that takes all the credit for things that they were actually incapable of even replicating, never mind envisioning in the first place. Now this brings us to Rama's bridge. This bridge is older than the development of culture and development that was played out by the survivors of the Great Flood. This place predates all known civilizations on the earth today. There is documentation, oral stories, and even satellite imagery that proves without a doubt what this place is and neither science or historical experts can come up with any logical suggestion that would place this in the context of what they make us believe to be true. Wait till you hear this. In India and Sri Lanka exists an ancient bridge that you could consider the smoking gun in terms of ancient civilizations. Images taken by NASA's Space Shuttle satellite has shown this land formation to be a long broken bridge under the ocean's surface. Now called Adams Bridge, it extends 18 miles from mainland India to modern-day Sri Lanka. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes it as a chain of shoals, but notes, traditionally it is said to be the remnant of a huge causeway constructed by Rama, the hero of the Hindu Epic Ramayana, to facilitate the passage of his army from India into Cylon, Sri Lanka, for the rescue of his abducted wife Sita. Certain historical inscriptions, old travel guides, old dictionary references, and some old maps have been cited to support a religious and geographical belief that this is an ancient man-made bridge. In the Hindu Epic Ramayana, the bridge was created by Rama and Lakshmana, with the assistance of Hanuman and the Vanara army to reach Lanka to find Rama's wife Sita who had been kidnapped by Ravana. In 2007, the Sri Lankan Tourism Development Authority sought to promote religious tourism from Hindu pilgrims in India by including the Phenomenon as one of the points of its Ramayana Trail. Celebrating the legend of Prince Rama, some Sri Lankan historians had condemned the undertaking as a gross distortion of Sri Lankan history. Vashnava News Network and some other US-based news services claimed to have found the remains of the bridge built by Rama and his Vanara army as narrated in Ramayana. Based on a study of the 2002 NASA satellite images, they contended it was not a natural formation but a human-made structure. NASA distanced itself from the claims saying that the images reveal nothing more than a 30 kilometer long natural occurring chain of sandbanks. It also clarified that the images reproduced on the website may well be ours, but their interpretation is certainly not ours. Remote sensing images or photographs from orbit cannot provide direct information about the origin or age of a chain of islands and certainly cannot determine whether humans were involved in producing any of the patterns seen. Now the dating of this bridge is absolutely extraordinary and dates back to the time of Rama. NASA apparently revealed to the Indian Bajaratya Janata Party that this is as old as 1.7 million years old. Isn't that astonishing? The dimensions of the bridge are off the charts at a distance of 30 miles in length. Is this the result of ancient advanced technology you have to wonder? Dr. Badri Narayanan, the former director of the Geological Survey of India, performs a survey of this structure and concluded that it was man-made. Dr. Badri Narayanan and his team drilled 10 boreholes along the alignment of Rama's bridge. What he discovered was startling. About 6 meters below the surface he found a consistent layer of calcareous sandstone, corals, and boulder-like materials. His team was surprised when they discovered a layer of loose sand, some 4 to 5 meters further down, and then hard rock formations below that. A team of divers went down to physically examine the bridge. The boulders that they observed were not composed of a typical marine formation. They were identified as having come from either side of the causeway. Dr. Badri Narayanan also indicates that there is evidence of ancient quarrying in these areas. His team concluded that materials from either shore were placed upon the sandy bottom of the water to form the causeway. So the connections are undoubtedly there. There is enough evidence to at least suggest that this ancient bridge is man-made, that human civilization is far older than 5,000 years, and history as we know it is completely soaked in delusion of belief that we as a people have believed without question for thousands of years now. What do you guys think of the epic bridge? Comment below and thank you for watching.


So Morgan Stanley analysts are raising their bear case on Tesla?  You know, you always have to be careful of Tesla if you think it's a car company. You don't have to be careful of Tesla if you think it's a technology company. Because technology companies obviously can, you can put a different multiple on a technology company and you can say that the technology is really good. What was frightening for any bear in that Morgan Stanley piece was that they're talking about the possibility of profitability for Tesla. Now, no bear would ever think that there could be anything but phony profitability. Here you're talking about positive cash flow. If there is positive cash flow, and again, I am not saying it is, but if the Morgan Stanley bull case about positive cash flow comes true, then the Morgan Stanley price target north of 500, I believe, can come true. Now that, now that will be interpreted as saying Jim Cramer thinks he can go to 500. I want to be very careful. I'm saying Morgan Stanley thinks that if the cash flow is positive.


Welcome back to Tennis Talk, my name's Cam Williams and it's time for the weekly raking show and things are starting to shape up for the ATB finals We've got some new players in the top 10 this week for both the men and the women and also the WTA finals It's set. The top eight have been confirmed Let's go starting with the past results because last week we had some big wins and some key players So let's start with the ATP from last week We had two tournaments last week starting with the St. Petersburg open where Marin Chilich got the win over Taylor Fritz 7, 6, 4, 6, 6, 4 Chilich has been in some good form the last couple of weeks and he gets rewarded with a trophy and the Vienna open An ATP 500 event, Sashas Varev getting the win over T-Arf-O, 7, 5, 6, 4 and Varev looking very good in that final as well So maybe a play to watch out for come the ATB finals in a couple of weeks time Having a look at the results for the women last week and we had the Kormaya ladies open with Vekic Defeated 1,7662 and a good comeback for Vekic because she was recovering from knee surgery only six months ago So really good comeback for her and the big one the Transylvania open Contribute getting the win over Halep 6, 2, 6, 3 qualifying for the WTA finals She had to win to qualify and she did didn't even drop a set all week She was absolutely unbelievable and she officially is into the WTA finals as we'll find out in a second All right, let's start with the ATP rankings this week No big changes to the main top 10 as we get Djokovic staying at number one, Medvedev at 2, City Pass at 3 Varev at 4 despite winning the Vienna Open, Raffer at 5, Rubelev at 6, Baratini at 7 Kasparud stays at number 8 but Dominik team he has dropped three spots out of the top 10 The first time in a long time he drops down to number 12 making way for Yannick Sinner made the semi-finals of Vienna He goes up two spots to a career high ranking number 9 in the world and a top 10 debut for him And who be her catch he stays at number 10 rounding out the top 10 for this week Heading over to the race to Turin now and we've still got two spots up for grabs with that four players in the running To get those last couple of spots so this week will be crucial in Paris Djokovic he still stays at number one with Medvedev at 2, City Pass at 3 It's Varev at 4 very close behind City Pass so there could be a change there come this time next week Rubelev is at number 5, Baratini, he's at number 6, Kasparud at number 7 He is just on the verge of qualifying but Yannick Sinner with a big week last week He's gone up one spot to number 8 pushing who be her catch who had a very poor week last week down to number 9 So the rankings were to stop right now Sinner would qualify and her catch would just miss out and Cam Norrie He is at number 10 in the rankings and the person who has the most successful week in Paris from those four players Could be the one who qualifies so a lot on the line this week in Paris only two spots up for grabs Let's go have a look at the players that have gone up in the rankings this week because it's some good results last week Some players got rewarded Alcarez. He's at a career high number 35 in the world and Tiafoe after a very good week last week He goes up to 41 in the world, which is eight spots higher than last week So Francis Tiafoe starting to rise up the rankings again with some good results players that have gone down in the rankings this week Rigor Dimitrov, he's gone out eight spots number 30 in the world despite having a pretty decent couple of weeks Especially at Indian Wells had some really good wins there He's gone down to 30 in the world and Kevin Anderson He's gone down to 76 in the world Which is 15 spots lower than last week lost a lot of points from Vienna a couple of years ago Which fell off this week. So he dropped a lot of points goes down number 76 over to the WTA rankings now The normal rankings and some changes to the top 10 big changes Barty stays at number one with Saberlinker at number two with the French open champion Kredgikova She's gone up to number three in the world taking over Pleschkova who's gone down to number four And that's a career high ranking for Kredgikova. So good to see French open champions slowly going up the rankings and remember She's already qualified for the WTA finals might be a dark horse. Watch out for her. Muguru is at number five But Svetalina she has dropped down eight spots after failing to qualify for the WTA final She has dropped a lot of points from two years ago Remember she got to the final a couple of years ago. She dropped all those points goes down eight spots making way for a lot Of players. Sarkari, she goes up number six. Jabor goes up to number seven and Contivate after a great week last week She's gone up six spots to a career high number eight and a top 10 debut for her Angie Kerber goes up three spots to number nine and Iggis Fjontek goes up one spot to number ten with the help of players like Ben Chichunosaka who also dropped out of the top ten this week after losing a lot of points from the WTA finals That they played a couple of years ago So so the rankings are starting to settle now with a lot of players losing points from two years ago and starting to get Those rankings back to normal so the best ten players in the world are the best ten players without them having to hold On a points from a couple of years ago heading over to the race of the finals now the race to Guadalajara And it's a big big finale qualifiers are in the Sabalenka. She's at number one credit cover at number two Push cover at three Sarkari at four. It's Fjontek at five Mugarutha at six Doser at seven all of those players have qualified from last week But Contivate after winning the Transylvania Open she had to win the title to get into the finals and she did it She pushes out on support just edges her out and qualifies for the WTA finals And she's had a great couple of weeks to really out of nowhere kind of make it into the finals She wasn't even considered a month ago to be a contender now She's in there and she pushes Jabour out who goes down to number nine and then we have Sarkar who we haven't seen since the US Open she drops down to number ten So it's official the WTA finals are set Contivate taking the last spot But Jabour will be first emergency someone in that top eight can't play in Mexico Okay, let's look at the players that have gone up in the rankings this week and Pavlia Chankova after a really solid 2021 she goes up four spots There are career high number 12 in the world thanks to a lot of players dropping out of the top ten and down the rankings losing a lot Of points from WTA finals so she gets rewarded for other players going down at a career high now 12 in the world and Vekic after winning a title last week in a bit of a comeback She has gone up 30 spots to number 67 in the world So good to see Vekic doing well again and getting some form late in the season after having recovered from injury Midway through the season and surgery as well So Vekic she gets rewarded with a title this week and also 30 ranking spots higher players that have gone down to the rankings this week Madison Keys she's gone down nine spots to number 55 in the world She continues to drop down the rankings for my grandson finals from about five years ago She is not doing well at the moment and yes, Sremska. She drops down 21 spots to number 100 in the world Of course was suspended onto her for a while with that doping charge She's been back for a couple of months now But her ranking is taking a big hit dropping down 21 spots on the edge of dropping out of the top 100 She is at number 100 as it stands There have it the rankings for this week and some big changes especially to the WTA with things starting to go back to normal Players losing points from two years ago dropping out of the top 10 and the WTA finals. They're set They're absolutely set and it's gonna be interesting to see who wins that event because for me if Barty was playing She'd be the clear favorite, but with no Barty. Who's the favorite? Let me know down in the comments below. Who's gonna win the WTA finals now that they're set? I have no idea. Consummate's in form. We all know that Kredje Kover might be a smoky. She's pretty good on hardcore surfaces So maybe her but I don't know it could be anyone to be honest Maybe Sarkarie could do it. Maybe maybe Jorbaugh comes into the last moment steals it Who knows but let me know down in the comments below who you think's gonna win the WTA finals now that the finals are set So the WTA finals they are locked in ATB finals after this week might be locked in too