Wow, that's destructive on a nuclear level. How delightful. You've found the best place, for your vengeful needs.  Until mama bear goes on a vengeful reconnaissance mission, and creates a Gatorade bottle of horror. Followed by a story about a Minecraft bully, who can't hide from the protective parents of his victim.  But a vengeful papa bear creates a mailbox of doom, that sends him to federal prison. Lastly, a champion of a dad is forced to protect his daughter, from her own mother. And he does so with a heavy dose of karma. This last story is included for my loyal minions, as I left the best for last. Don't forget to greet the like button, after shunning it for two years for no apparent reason. Naturally, viewer discretion is advised. These family revenge stories, might be disturbing to some audiences. Many years ago, while recovering from a brutal marriage, I was a struggling single parent putting myself through grad school on a small teaching associate stipend. I was able to rent a modest apartment within walking distance of the urban campus. It was part of a series of small 100 year old brick townhouses, which I imagine were very nice in their day. Over the years, as old buildings do, it had settled, and the doors and windows were askew enough to be drafty. In the snowy winter, we applied plenty of shrinkwrap window cling. In the summer, the brick building was like an oven, with no central air conditioning, and ventilation was necessary to stave off heat stroke. Despite the hardships, we were safe, and we were content. After a couple of years, though, this changed when a new dude moved into a nearby apartment. Because out of the scores of parking spaces behind the apartment block, he was assigned the parking space right behind mine. The guy was, apparently, an avid fan of the Fast and Furious franchise, having made various mods to his car and a vanity plate reading, Drifter.  But he had clearly neglected the car's actual engine and exhaust system.  Every, single, time.  As I mentioned in the beginning, the apartment was old and drafty. So every time he decided to drive his car, sometimes several times a day. He would first let it billow clouds of noxious exhaust fumes into nearby apartments. And right into my 4-year-old's bedroom. I tried everything to keep the fumes out, but to no avail. My child and I both felt ill, every time. This was hurting my kid. I couldn't afford to move. And I was out of ideas. Seeing that he was outside working on his car again, but without giving too many details about myself, I approached the guy and explained that the fumes were filling my apartment and making me ill. And politely asked if he would mind warming up his car farther away from the surrounding apartments. He sneered at me and said, Well I'm sorry, but not all of us are lucky enough to have mommy and daddy pay for their car and put them through college. I'm sorry that my car is not up to your standards, but I'm not moving it. Shocked, I walked off in a different direction than my apartment, so he wouldn't know exactly where I lived. By the time I got home, I was angry. Fuming. I knew some sort of formal complaint would likely go nowhere.  I took some time to monitor his comings and goings and planned some proper consequences, to fix the problem myself. The goal, to end the daily poisoning of my apartment and danger to my child, permanently. Budget, shoestring, of course, because I didn't have mommy and daddy to pay for my revenge budget. Skill level, low. The problem was the engine, and I had very little knowledge about how to quickly, quietly, and permanently disable an engine. I didn't know how to jimmy a lock, or open a locked gas cap, so I wouldn't be able to get access to the engine or gas tank. No, I was not about to google instructions. Time available, minutes at most. The parking lot was a very busy place, as students came and went at all hours of the day and night, and sometimes just hung out there to party or set nearby dumpsters on fire. As much as I wanted to, I couldn't just douse the car in gasoline or worse, because it was parked way too close to my apartment. Cosmetic damage wouldn't work. Slashing tires or breaking windows, while satisfying, could be too loud, and not And then on Reconnaissance Day 2, I noticed it, his car was old enough to have little triangle windows for venting in the back windows. And he kept them open at night. The answer, I would fight fumes with. You guessed it, fumes. The next day, I bought a cheap Gatorade squeeze bottle and some eggs. I made a yellow soup out of egg yolks and warm water to fill up the bottle about two thirds full, then added some of the fresh dog poo that was always available next to the sidewalk outside. I screwed the cap onto the bottle and left it in the sun outside for several days, swirling it around from time to time. I waited for the early hours of a Tuesday morning, when the parking lot was the least busy, and snuck up to the car. The triangle windows were open. I popped the cap up, aimed it into the car, and sprayed days old, sun-baked rotten egg and dog poop soup, over every available surface of the inside of his car. Even down the window wells, into the air conditioner vents, and soaking into crevices and upholstery. I tossed the Gatorade bottle of horror into the dumpster, went back inside, and went to sleep. The next day was a particular warm one. It was one of the great joys of my life, to have been home that afternoon at just the right time, to be startled by a man's voice screaming.  I ran upstairs to the window he regularly fumigated, and through the blinds, watched the scene unfold. The dude had opened the driver's side door, and repeatedly moved his head closer to sniff and then gagged. Like he refused to believe, the smell was coming from his car. He opened the other door to investigate. He kept yelling, what the fuck? And then he ran off.  He spent the next half hour scream growling, holding his breath, bobbing his head into the car and scrubbing, pulling his head out to gag and scream again, and taking deep breaths to go back in. The scrubbing, retching and screaming were increasingly interspersed with pounding on the dashboard and the roof, kicking his rims, and loudly vowing revenge at the sky. Within about 30 minutes, he was surrounded by about 10 other dudes standing in a wide half circle around the car, some drinking beers, watching the show, laughing, and offering pointers. Like king of the hill come to life. It took him roughly an hour to realize that the battle had been lost. The dudes yelling became horse and whimpery. He retrieved his toolbox, removed a wrench, and started doing something new to the interior. He suddenly pulled out the entire driver's seat, walked away with it, and angrily heaved it into the dumpster. He did the same with the passenger seat.  I never saw the car again. He never drove it back. That, and his pride must have been a total loss. My greatest regret is that because smartphones didn't exist, I have no recording of that glorious day. So, my daughter, who was about 8 at the time, was really into Minecraft, as most kids of these days. Also desperately wanting to join the youtube slash let's play culture, I had installed some screen recording software that would let her make videos of the game she was playing, so she could later upload them to youtube. Anyways, one day I'm minding my own business, when I hear her quietly sniffling over on the computer. I asked her what was wrong, but she didn't want to tell me so I let it go, but decided to keep an eye on her. A few minutes later I discovered what was happening. Someone was harassing not only her, but also all the other kids playing on whatever server she was on. This kid, we'll call them crappy, was saying horrible things about how he was going to hurt my 8 year old daughter, she told him how old she was, hoping he would stop. He told her how he was going to hack into her IP and steal all her info, swearing profusely, remember, this is a game for kids.  We realized that our daughter had been recording the entire incident, and a plan began to form. I started by googling crappy's username. There were several hits immediately, the most interesting of which involved a page where he was publicly applying to be a mod for a server on Minecraft. I was able to learn a lot about this little disappointment. He claimed to be 15, likes hockey, used to live in Toronto but now lives in Florida. But the bombshell, was easily his Skype contact info, it was literally his first name with his last name.  So I head over to Facebook and search for the name. Nothing. On a hunch, I searched for just the last name, while narrowing my results to only the state of Florida. Several dozen hits. So I have to start combing through each one, until I find what I was looking for. A middle-aged man with the same last name, whose profile indicates he was born in Toronto and now lives in Florida. I found your dad, crappy. So I sent him a message on Facebook, asking if he had a son named such and such, who goes by his username on Minecraft. Dad confirmed I had the right guy. So my wife begins telling the dad everything the crappy was saying to my daughter, and we sent him the recorded video as proof. Radio silence for a few days. Then we got the message back. Crappy had his computer taken away from him for the entire summer, and had also been lying about his age, he was only 11, I think. His parents were absolutely livid with him, and he surely hated the next few months of his life. No one hurts my daughter. This happened a long time ago, but still makes me giggle to this day. So way back in the day, mid 90s or so, my family lived in a log cabin on 10 acres of land in a rural area, 10 minutes or so out of town. It wasn't totally the sticks, but you could definitely hear banjo music in the background sometimes. At the end of our nearly one quarter mile long driveway, was one of those roads that was also technically a state highway. In the am I'd trudge down to wait for the bus, when I got home I'd grab the mail and carry it back. Until one Monday morning, when I went out and noticed the mailbox was gone. On closer inspection, it looked like it had just been ripped out of the ground. Dad was obviously not pleased. He went to talk with the county sheriff who happened to live a mile down the road. Turns out, it had been happening up and down the road for months. Someone was tossing a chain over mailboxes and yanking them out with their vehicle.  It usually happened on Saturday and Sunday nights, with people finding out in the morning. Also seems the nicer the mailbox the bigger a target, and many had been hit multiple times. People had tried digging deeper, using more durable wood, etc. The guy just took it as a challenge and ripped them out again. His truck was a monster.  A bit about my father. He's a steel worker with an engineering background and graduate degree.  Most people looking at him, would never think this monster of a man is also brilliant, but he is. The calm, cool type that almost never loses his temper. But wrong in, and God help you. So dad goes to Lowe's and buys the fanciest, prettiest mailbox they sell. He then proceeds to install it on top of an 8 feet long cylinder of 3 inches diameter, hardened tool steel. And he wasn't done there. After digging down with post holes and dropping it in, he then filled it in with quickset concrete. To really sell it, he then used some wooden strips of half an inch, to cover the steel core of his now indestructible mailbox of doom. Primed and painted them so it looked like a standard 4 inches post. And even had my mom decorate it with flowers and such. He wanted it to be as tempting of a target as possible. Didn't even take a week. I went out for school in the morning and found the mailbox right where it should be. But attached to it, was 30 feet of chain and an entire hitch assembly. Ripped right off the truck's frame, sheared the bolts. It was marvelous to behold. Sheriff gets called over dies laughing when he sees it. He went to the house of the guy that was suspected and sure enough, he verified that the damage to his truck matched. Fun fact, destroying a mailbox is a federal crime. As in you go to federal prison, not those cushy state places. Dad was unofficially rewarded by the sheriff's department with a few cases of beer and some venison. And after that, every deputy in town would flash him a thumbs up whenever they saw him. To start off, this is a throwaway, as I don't want it to tie back to me. This is going to be a heavy one, so buckle up and you won't regret it. These events took place over several years. Let's get some backstory out of the way. So, Pepper and I had a very up and down marriage. It was one of those that I was madly in love with her, but looking back, I think she was in it more for the money and convenience. She had one son from before we got married, and I also had one son I had full custody of. Let's call her son Bernie, he was a major drug addict. While married, we had Sarah together. I toughed the marriage out for as long as I could but eventually, we just couldn't keep it together. We separated and due to traveling some for work and having custody of my son, I moved back to my hometown a few states away, so my parents could help. But I kept an apartment in the town that Pepper and Sarah lived in, so that I could still spend as much time with my daughter as I could. During this time, I asked my best friend Jason, who is a lawyer and owns his own firm, to create a child support agreement for us. It is very important to note that we only addressed child support, it had nothing in it about custody or visitation, or anything else like that. So, for about a year this was how it would work. I would spend a month with Sarah, while my parents watched my other son. After this, I would spend a month with my son. Almost exactly a year later, I could no longer afford keeping two households up and running and Pepper wanted to move back to her hometown. Her hometown was in a different state, but closer to where I lived, so I gave up the apartment and she moved. The new situation continued for a couple more years. Pepper and I remained friendly and even tried to reconcile the relationship a couple of times, but it wouldn't work out. I was still deeply in love with her, but we couldn't come to an agreement on things like where to live and such. I forced myself to try and move on and started dating. She had been dating basically from the day after I moved out. Even though I still loved her, our relationship moved more into good friends than husband and wife. So, she finally meets Steve. I never was told much about Steve, other than he was a certified ethical hacker and that is what he did for employment, this will be important later. While they were dating, she would send me texts about their dates.  This hurt deeply and looking back, I think this is what she was actually aiming at, but I tried to play the part of good friend and confidante. Steve and Pepper had been dating for six months when out of the blue, she tells me they broke up and she realized that she is madly in love with me. Since it was at the beginning of summer she packed some suitcases and headed to my state. They were going to spend the summer with me, and see if they like it or not. Looking back, we had an amazing summer. All the kids are getting along, Bernie even loved it here, so we make it official that we are back together and they are moving in with me. We went and registered my daughter for school, we even were able to get her on a Pee Wee cheerleading team for the summer. She made several friends and loved being here. There was only one problem. Pepper still had an apartment that had all her furniture and stuff in it. I offered to go up with my truck and help load everything, but she insisted that her and Bernie can get it done.  As you can guess, things didn't go as planned. She was home for about three days, when she informs me that under no circumstance will she move, and I kid you not. That her and Steve are deeply in love, and are moving in with each other. To say I was destroyed was an understatement. I couldn't understand why she had done it. The worst part was that she left it to me to tell Sarah the bad news. When I told her, the devastated look on her face started turning my feelings of hurt into feelings of anger. Then Sarah broke down and started begging to stay with me and started spilling the beans. She told me things about how her mom would leave with Steve for days, and leave Bernie in charge. She had to learn how to cook for herself at eight, because Bernie would spend the money on narcotics and spend the whole time getting stony bologna high. If Bernie wasn't left in charge, Pepper would use her multiple convicted felon niece to watch over her. She also told me about the first time that she had met Steve. He came to their house, basically said hello and straight away disappeared into the bedroom with her mom, starting a loud sexy time session for everyone to hear. Sarah was outside the door bawling her eyes out, and they just ignored her and continued. This is how my eight year learned of sexy time, and she is still in counseling trying to recover seven years later. At this point, my anger has turned to rage. I immediately notified Pepper, that there was no way Sarah was coming back, and I would fight her to the death to keep her out of that situation. Pepper responded by getting an emergency hearing in her state to force Sarah back. I had to scramble, but I managed to get a lawyer and easily won the hearing, which Pepper showed up late for and told the judge it was due to a disability. The judge agreed that since there was no custody agreement, and with the troubling accusations that I had gathered, it was best for Sarah to stay with me for the time being. I had won the first battle, but it was short lived. Within an hour of the hearing, I started getting tons of phishing emails and texts. I was also getting password resets and MFA codes from my bank, Facebook, Reddit, and many other accounts. I knew that Steve was behind it. The very next day Jason calls. His law firm's website, email, and phone account had been hacked. Because he had to disclose the hack to the court and because he was working on a semi-high profile case at the time, the FBI got involved. To say I was enraged was an understatement. These two people had destroyed me, harmed my daughter, and tarnished the reputation of my lifelong friend. It was time for them to pay, and pay dearly. I was a man on a mission. I spent hours digging up as much dirt as I could on Stephen and Pepper. I had a lot of luck with Pepper. I found social media posts of her out late drinking, that correlated to tardiness and missed days at school for Sarah. I found tons of pics of her and two strange kids doing questionable activities. I found neighbors that were willing to testify that Sarah had to come beg for food, because she was left with either Bernie or the felon. I knew I had enough to bury her, in the filth of her own creation. Steve on the other, had all his accounts locked down. I couldn't find any dirt and it was driving me crazy. Then it hit me to try LinkedIn. And it paid off. There wasn't much posted, but through his account I found Maria, his ex-wife's account. I reached out to her and she happily accepted. Maria and I became fast friends. She felt pure hatred towards Pepper, for good reason as they had both abandoned her kids like my daughter, and didn't want her around her kids. I learned so much. To keep it short, Maria and Steve had recently divorced. As part of the custody agreement Steve got the house, car, bank account, savings, and a lower than usual child support. Maria had traded all that money and assets to have control of the kids. She knew he was a scumbag, and all she was concerned about was keeping her kids safe. They had a very detailed custody agreement with rules for Steve to follow. As part of that agreement, if Steve broke any rules, then he had to pay and pay dearly. He had to sell the house and give her half of everything. His child support would also double, and Steve would be financially ruined. Steve also didn't have her blocked on social media and would regularly send texts, bragging about how great his life was without her. Many of those texts had pictures of pepper in them. We compared notes, we swapped evidence, we came up with a plan. And now it is time for revenge. First, I got with Jason, he let the FBI investigator know that I had also had some hacking attempts aimed towards me, and we believed it was the same person. The investigator called quickly. I gave him all the information I had and who I believed was doing it, but then he asked a weird question. He asked if I knew where Steve worked. Well yes I did, thanks to Maria. So apparently, Steve wasn't as good as a hacker as he thought himself to be. They had already traced back the hack on Jason to a business. The very same business Steve worked for. As soon as my conversation with the FBI was done, I called his work to lodge a complaint. I told the manager that someone was trying to hack me, and I was sure it was Steve. They of course didn't take it too seriously, because I had no proof. What they didn't know, was that they were soon going to be getting a visit from a special agent.  Pepper got served with the divorce papers, and her lawyer got served with all the evidence I had gathered. My lawyer said it was the most complete investigation he had ever seen. I had all 40 tardiness and 19 absences tied to night's out drinking with Steve. I had hard proof of them abandoning my daughter for days at a time. As a cherry on top, Maria even gave me a picture that was taken at 2 AM, the night before the emergency hearing, in which you could see Steve and Pepper drinking in a tattoo parlor. The same hearing, she was late to and said it was due to a disability. Steve got served that he had violated the entire custody agreement. Maria had pictures from me, proving he was with Pepper on nights the kids were with him, and they were left alone. She also had proof that there was contact with Pepper that violated the custody agreement. The fallout was awesome to watch. Steve was fired, between my complaint, another older complaint of him hacking, and the FBI showing up, they had no choice but to fire him. He did avoid any legal issues as the FBI could never tie it directly to him. The word spread of why he was fired, and no one would hire him in an IT job again. He had to sell the house, liquidate all the investments, and bank accounts and give half to Maria. His child's support got to stay the same, since he no longer had a source of income. Last I heard he was working at a grocery store. So in total, his income went from 200k plus a year, to less than 40k. As for Pepper, the divorce was swift and painful for her. The judge ruled in my favor for all counts. I got sole custody and sole decision making. She was forced to go to counseling, and she and Bernie can only visit Sarah with a third party supervisor, paid for by Pepper. Several times she would call and beg for forgiveness, or for me to agree to lift the supervision order. I stayed the course and denied her requests. It has been over a year since either I or Sarah have heard anything from her. Sarah is doing much better. She still needs counseling, but she thrives in school and has many friends. She very rarely sees her mom. But she is much better off without her. You stay till the end, which means you're the one I make these episodes for. I want to take this moment, to thank you, I really appreciate you, because you bring me a great amount of joy. Subscribe for future uploads and show your vengeful devotion, by tickling the like button, without mercy. Do you have any experiences surrounding the topic of this episode? Share yours below, I'll join the conversation. And I'll be seeing you, in the next one.


I'm gonna grab something from the room. It's not like they're using them now. That's ice water Why is I think she's concussed.  We're going on. It's been hours, and we haven't made it out of beacon He don't look at me this stupid compass must be broken keeps leading us in circles See now it's telling me north is back that way John Ren found this old stack of VHS tapes. You want to help us sort through them and see what's on them Thanks for checking out that episode of Ruby Chibi We're gonna be re-releasing the entire first season every week on this channel If you want more from the team that brought you Ruby and other great animated shows You can check out I have notes or any of our select all content our live-action content helps support the animation content So it's all going in the same place Like things subscribe things do things to bells


So, welcome to NEMO's eighth webinar, which we are again presenting in collaboration with NEMIC, the New Media Center for Cultural Heritage, and MICC, Media Integration and Communication Center. NEMO is, as hopefully all of you know, the network of European Museum Organizations, and we aim to offer a variety of activities to museum professionals as well as museum organizations. And we are very happy to deliver relevant content to you, the organizations, to individual museum professionals, and then make this information also accessible to a larger audience. Our members consist of national museum organizations, other cultural institutions and networks as well as individual museums, and we're interested to support all of them. And we do this by advocating, by collaborating, by sharing and training, and also offer this to our members and non-members. And the webinars are just one example of the different offers that we have. Today, Mark O'Neill, the former director of policy and research for Glasgow Life, if you don't know what Glasgow Life is, it's a charity that delivers arts, museums, libraries and sports services for the city of Glasgow. Mark will facilitate the webinar today, as you all know, probably it's called Museums Health and Well-Being. And I think, or we at NEMO think, that the role of museums for society has been evident ever since the first museums came to be. And if you've been following us, the last webinar by Masimou Negri was about the great revolution of museums, and he talked about how the perception of that role that museums have for society has changed over time. And Mark will just focus on one of those aspects, and look at it in regard or with regard to health. Because Mark is a much better expert on the history as well as the current issues in that regard, I will give the virtual stage to Mark in just a moment. Before that, just a few organizational remarks. Mark's presentation will be uploaded on our website after the webinar, and we will also upload the recording. So if you have trouble following, or if you just want to revisit it, or if you thought it was really great, and you want to recommend it to others, we will upload it in the next few weeks to our YouTube channel and also then embed it on our website. If you have questions throughout the webinar, please just write them in the chat, and Mark will answer them at the end of the session. If you have any other problems, technical issues, please also write them in the chat, and we'll try to give you answers. Of course, it's troublesome to do troubleshooting from afar, but we'll try our best. And when I say we try our best, we of course value your feedback. So if you have anything that you'd like to say after the webinar about the quality, the content, if you have any kinds of requests, please write them down in the chat or send them to us via email. Well, welcome to this international, temporary community and cyberspace. It's great so many people have signed up for this exploration of a museum's health and well-being. I'm going to talk for about 40 minutes, and then I'll try to answer any questions you may have. So the structure of my talk first, many museum staff intuitively believe museums make a positive contribution to people's health and well-being. Museums are increasingly developing activities, projects, and services which seek to enhance their impact in this area. This webinar aims to review the current state of museums and health and look beyond individual projects and services in order to offer a framework for realizing the potential contribution of museums to human well-being. My presentation is divided into three parts. The first part will begin with a brief overview of what museums are doing in relation to health and well-being just now, and what we know about evaluation and impact. In order to put this in a wider, more strategic context, I'll take a brief look at the history of public museums and public health over the past 150 years, and I hope to show that there is more of a shared history than you might expect. I will then review the evidence for health benefits of museum visiting in work carried out by epidemiologists or medical statisticians. This section will conclude with a summary of what we know about the health benefits of museums. The second part of my talk would begin with an account of what some public health academics are calling the health crisis of modernity, in which they argue it requires a new wave of public health in order to address the diseases of modernity like mental ill health, loneliness, and obesity. This new wave of public health, they argue, requires a more holistic approach based on fostering social trust and inclusive narratives, which enhance people's sense of leading meaningful lives. I think this will enable us also to understand better the underlying reasons why museums are looking at health and well-being just now. I'll then move on to suggesting a strategic approach to museums' health and well-being. This is a tentative framework, so I'll be very interested to hear what you think in cyberspace think about it. I'll also try to say a bit about resources. So museums' health and well-being now, projects and services, across Europe, museums are beginning to explore issues of museums and health. Faro, at the top of the slide here, the Flemish Centre for Cultural Heritage has published a report and a pilot about using museum collections in health and well-being activities. The bottom left is a report by the University of Zurich about museums in older people, especially those with dementia, while the bottom right of the slide is about a program for people suffering from this terrible disease in the Belvedere Museum in Vienna. One of the largest museum services anywhere focusing on dementia is the National Museums of Liverpool, where they have redefined the function of museums as the preserver of memories, whether they're in the museum, in the museum objects, or in people's minds. They have produced a wide range of resources, including a free app which you can download, which can be used by individuals and families, as well as people in care homes. Arch museums can run a significant number of services. For example, here you can see programs run by the Metropolitan Museum in New York, which comprises tours for visitors with dementia and precarious. There's tours for people who are deaf and have hearing impairment, tours for people with visual impairments and those with learning disabilities. All of these programs involve significant external fundraising and extensive use of trained volunteers. Many museums also undertake projects for people whose health is vulnerable. For example, we in Glasgow have undertaken health-related projects with patients in the mental hospital, with prisoners who are in jail and with survivors of torture. These projects often require significant resources and are usually only possible with external funding also. While they can have a big impact on small numbers of people, it's often difficult to continue to meet the needs of these groups and for the museum as a whole to learn from them. Other museums run similar time-limited projects with refugees and asylum seekers, with teenagers and children, with older people, a whole range of people whose health is at risk. This is an American Association of Museums 2013 report which gathered information about the wide range of areas of health care in which museums are involved. As you can see, the projects and services range from providing information which improves people's knowledge about health and nutrition, to working in hospitals with patients and medical staff, and from working with people with visual impairments and learning disabilities to people with Alzheimer's. University College London is an international leader in research about the impact of museums and health, and they have worked with 30 museums to develop a tool for assessing the impact of health-related museum service. This is available to download free from the University College London website. One of the authors of this instrument is also a co-author of this book, the only book I know of dedicated to the subject of museums health and wellbeing, Helen Chatterjee and Guy Noble. It summarises 10 years of research on health and wellbeing, which shows that museums benefit health in the following ways. Positive social experiences in museums can lead to reduced social isolation. Museums provide opportunities for learning and for acquiring new skills. Museums provide calming experiences which can help reduce anxiety, and they can provide increased positive emotions such as optimism, hope and enjoyment. Museums have been shown to increase self-esteem and a sense of identity. They can increase inspiration and opportunities for meaning making. They can be, when provided for people with diagnosed conditions, be a distraction from clinical environments such as hospitals and care homes, and they can improve communication between families, carers and health professionals. So that's the summary of the kind of activities that museums are engaging in now and the evidence base for it. I would now like to step back from this picture of the present and take a brief look at the sometimes shared and sometimes parallel history of museums and public health. According to a leading public health academic, Professor Phil Hanlon in Glasgow University, there have been four great waves in public health history from the 1850s onwards, and he now says that we are entering, or rather that we need to enter a fifth wave which takes a more holistic approach to well-being. These waves are cumulative, they don't replace each other, but what I would do is I would run briefly through these periods, say how museums relate to public health improvements. I've got to spend most of the time on the first wave, which is when public health museums first emerged, and part of my argument will be that in their pioneering days museums were often part of a holistic vision of a healthy society today. The first wave of public health involves solving major physical problems of industrial cities, including building sores and providing clean water, as you can see in the cartoon in the top of my slide. Museums in this period were set up for many reasons to express imperial or national identity, but also to educate a broad public or civilizing the masses as it would have been called then. These educational intentions were often paternalistic, but before universal free state-funded public schools, museums were an important progressive contribution to public learning, and you can see in the cartoons in the bottom of my slide from the 1860s the supposed benefit from visiting a museum on a Sunday, compared to the alternative recreations the cartoon shows a wife pleading with her husband to come home from a pub instead of being improved by looking at objects in a museum. More broadly, in this period, museums, along with public libraries and public parks were part of a holistic vision of the city, as authorities tried to address the appalling conditions of Victorian industrial centres. Many museums, parks and libraries were relatively democratic learning spaces where people could gather safely in the presence of strangers, becoming, however briefly, members of the same community. And in case you think I'm projecting the link between public health museums back from the present, this is a quotation from the speech by a leading city council in 1891, when talking about planning for Glasgow's local hipster museums, the People's Palace, which opened in 1898. In his 1891 lecture, he asked, is it possible for any public health, any public body to deal effectively with institutions and conditions of life, apparently so widely removed as public health and municipal art, and the capital letters are in the original publication of his lecture. So this question of the answer was, quote, a resounding yes. To create a healthy city, all aspects of human wellbeing had to be addressed, whether by clean water or by a great art. And in terms of actually treating the sick, these are quotations from Florence Nightingale, who invented professional nursing in Britain during the Crimean War of the 1850s.  A wider reason for the foundation of museums in the mid-Victorian period related to human wellbeing was a response to major trends like urbanization, secularization, immigration, which undermined traditional sources of meaning, leading to what Emil Darkheim called ennemy. This was most visible in the creation of open-air museums, which reflected a sense of loss of a whole way of life as people migrated to cities and farming became industrialized. It is possible to see museums more generally as compensating for the destructiveness of the market economy by meeting the human need for communal needs. Nor was this approach restricted to regional or rural museums. The founder of the V&A in London, Henry Cole, was committed to radical access and was explicit about his commitment to making walking-class families welcome in museums, opening the V&A late through using gas lighting specifically to do so, and he wrote eloquently about how London's national gallery was compared to the V&A. In the second wave of public health from about 1890 to 1950, scientific expertise was the dominant mode, solving many medical problems, creating vaccines, and later on antibiotics. In this period, museums were also professionalized and their expertise recognized and codified, and in many cases, however, lost their pioneering, democratic and experimental impulses so that they served educated classes rather than aiming to educate the wider population. They lost their holistic perspective and became narrowly, professionally focused. When people talk about traditional museums, what they're often talking about is this later elitist model which developed along with aestheticism and modernism, partly in response to mass democratization. So, for example, when Henry Cole, the founding director of the V&A, retired, the curators who took over completely withdrew the commitment to public engagement and it became the elitist institutions which it remains today. I'm not going to walk through the next two stages of public health in detail. As I said, they overlap and they're cumulative, with major efforts after World War II to address what were then called the social evils of poverty, ill health and ignorance. Through Universal, state provided free education and healthcare, the welfare state as we call it now. Again, there were huge advances in science, including, for example, proof that tobacco was dangerous with subsequent state control. In the museum world, this was a period of massive expansion with numbers increasing exponentially over the period. This is the world we live in now, where museums have a strong professional ethos of collections care, combined with marketing, blockbuster exhibitions, very well developed education service, disabled access, outreach to deprived communities, as well as a continuation in parallel of the elite model of museum provision based on prestige. So, after this brief look at museum history, which suggests to me anyway that the Victorians had great ambitions from museums to improve people's lives, I would like to look at the evidence from medical epidemiologists, these medical statisticians, on the impact of museum visiting, or in other words, were the Victorians right about museums improving people's lives. There are about 20 of these studies that I've referred to, which demonstrate that museum visiting, not participating in any intensive activities or workshops, simply visiting museums or attending other cultural activities, like going to the cinema or live music, make people live longer. This study, for example, showed that visiting museums in the cinema had an impact on people's, the length of people's lives on a large scale. The study involved over 14 years involved 10,000 people and was controlled for gender-smoking economic status, education and chronic illness. The key question, of course, is whether, which way the causal vector runs? Is it that healthier people visit museums more often, or that people who visit museums become healthier? This was addressed in a 2001 study by Johansson, Conlon and Byron, which aimed to assess, quote, how changes of inhabit of attending cultural events in the community might predict self-reported help. They studied just under 3,800 adults over a 12-year period and found that, quote, those who became culturally less active between the first and second occasions, or those who were culturally inactive on both occasions, ran a 65% increased risk of impaired, perceived health compared to those who were culturally active on both occasions. The study further found that those who changed from being culturally less active to being more active had about the same level of perceived risk as those on both occasions. They concluded that these results could be in agreement with the causal influence of cultural stimulation. This is another study, this time not about museum visiting but about reading, because one of the questions is, is it just the social experience of museum visiting, or is it just walking around to visit a museum? This study found that among 70-year-old men living in Israel in community, not in care homes, found that men who read for 20 minutes a day lived longer than those who didn't. And the final study I'm going to refer to, again, by Bygren Johansson and Conlan and others, assessed the health impact, health differences of impact between those who rarely attended cultural events, the events listed here, cinema, theater, art galleries, museums and live music, where defined as under five, moderate, six to 12, and frequently over 12. And they found that in, again, a very large number of people, I think 8,000 people, followed up 12 years later, rare attendees were over three times, and moderate attendees were nearly three times, more likely to die of cancer than frequent attendees. So to summarize, the impact of museum visiting from these 20 studies and museum visiting along with other cultural activities, there's growing evidence for the health impact of simply visiting museums, and that this is not just a reflection of income class or education. There's also evidence that a state will visit museums more often, but that visiting museums generates improved health. The evidence is that, like exercise, the benefit of museum visiting is ephemeral, and it can be lost or regained if cultural attendance is stopped or started. If you would like more information about this research, I've written an article which summarizes it.  If you can't find it, contact me via LinkedIn, and I can send you a copy. So to bring the two kinds of evidence together from a Chatterjee and Moose book and from the medical epidemiologist, we can say that museums provide a wide range of benefits to individuals, small groups, and large populations, so that we can be confident that museums have a significant role in public health. What I would now like to do is to join up the small projects and the larger population impact as part of our contribution to the new wave of public health impact. This requires, I think, a strategic approach, whether your museum is heavily involved already in health related activities or whether you're just about to begin. So the final section of my talk, no, sorry, it's only the second section of my talk, is about the fifth wave of public health and the crisis of modernity. So this is a slide about globalization. I'm sure you could make up your own about the huge changes that are happening in the world across all sectors and the huge stresses they place on people. The impact of deindustrialization, globalization, and particularly the pressure to consume, the competitive pressure on people to constantly upgrade their consumer products and the pressures of media culture, are giving us new freedoms, new choices, but also creating new pressure reducing social support and eroding traditional sources of individual family and communal meaning and leading to new sources of chronic ill health, poverty and demoralization. The crisis therefore of modernity in terms of health is causing huge inequalities and increasing inequalities in health and new sources of ill health. The main causes of illness and early death are no longer contagious or infectious diseases, but a consumerist culture, particularly the consumerist food culture which promotes obesity, an intensification of individualism which leads to further loss of meaning and to the disease conditions of our time, mental ill health, suicide, loneliness, addictions and substance abuse. As statistics show that in last year more people committed suicide than were killed in war or in violent crime and as more and more people live alone research suggests that chronic loneliness is going to become as great a cause of early death as smoking. This is a chart from a foresight report by the British government, huge scientific study of what enables well-being and the key thing that comes across from it is complexity and working out where to intervene is one of the big problems for museums. Luckily a UK think tank called the New Economics Foundation has summarized the implications of the foresight report with this advice for people. It's the equivalent of five a day portions of fruit and vegetables for physical health. In effect these are five a day for mental well-being. The advice is that people need to connect because people are important for our well-being, crucial for our well-being. People need to be active because being active not only improves our physical health but improves our mood and helps us sleep better. Taking notice, practicing awareness of sensations, thoughts and feelings helps us improve our well-being, keeping learning because this is good for our self-esteem, gives us skills for life and keeps us mentally fit, give volunteering, generosity, improve our mood and our self-esteem as is receiving people also need to learn to receive more. Regularly engaging in these activities not only gives us a feeling of well-being and a more satisfying life, they also build our resources, our mental capital, keeping us more mentally alert and more resilient in the face of adversity and I think you can see immediately how he's fit into much of what museums do already and have potential for expansion. Professor Hamlin sets out what he sees as the characteristic of the emerging wave of public health. I'm not going to go into this in detail here but the underlying philosophy is for institutions to support people's resilience so they can resist consumerist culture and also not rely on state prohibitions, building a healthier society through promoting positive good relationships based on trust and mutual acceptance and I'll come back to this in terms of the structure of strategic framework for museums. This is, as Hamlin defines it, the aspiration for the fifth wave of public health and it seems to me to provide a very useful way for looking at the potential contribution of museums to health and well-being rather than thinking of museums as a site for medical treatment. Museums which are outside the market and we resist the pressures of the market and we remain part of the public sphere as long as we continue to do this and also reject the elitist traditions, be genuine and inclusive. If we do all of these things, museums can be sites of hope, motivation and consciousness raising. We can approach the health and well-being of our communities on our own terms, make a contribution to addressing the disease conditions of our time as I said mental ill health, suicide, loneliness, addiction, substance misuse, social isolation. We can do this on our own terms not by trying to provide treatment for small numbers of people in our venues but through renewing our commitment to radical access so that we can be sites for the recovery of meaning and catalysts for rebuilding social trust, mutual awareness and acceptance. So I think this gives us a wider sense of why museums are engaging with health and well-being now. Part of it is about the constant increasing pressure to justify what we do and to demonstrate in new roles where we add value but I also have tried to show today that part of our tradition, one tradition of museums going right back to the origins of public museums in the Victorian period is a part of a holistic vision of a healthy society which recovers meaning and creates community and also we are intuitively responding to the health crisis of modernity. So in order to develop a strategic approach I think we need to move from projects and services to a wider strategy but before we do that I'd just like quickly to remind you of the whole range of health benefits from museums which you can see on the left and the idea that it's a behavior that people need to repeat over and over again to gain the benefit. A significant number of health related projects have a beginning and an end and don't generate new visitors to museums which I think is where the large-scale potential for a health impact is. So one way of trying to create a framework is to look at it in terms of spectrum of engagement. On the left hand side you have formal therapy where health professionals treating people in a museum for example with art therapy for people with a mental health problem. This is relatively rare. Museums most often work in this second column on projects and the third column services focusing on people with a diagnosed condition like dementia, depression or autism. These are usually carried out in partnership with health organizations or in column 3 targeting vulnerable groups like refugees and asylum seekers. There is good evidence for the benefits of these projects for these parties. The wider next stage of a strategic approach is set out in columns 4 and 5 given the evidence that regular museum visiting without intensive activity as a significant museums on health. The key question is how can we promote museum visiting amongst people whose health is vulnerable whether because of poverty, minority stages or mental health. I think at least part of the answer is to join up small-scale projects and services to activities targeting large populations of vulnerable or elderly people. It's possible to envisage a cycle where a museum begins with small projects focusing on a particular population group whether it's the elderly, socially isolated people, refugees or whoever. This would of course be co-produced where representatives of that group community. The key for me then is the next stage where the whole museum not just the outreach or education department learns how the museum needs to change to make large numbers from this group more welcome. This might mean training for front-of-house staff for example in dementia or autism awareness or how to welcome people who don't speak the majority of them. It might mean changing the displays so that disabled people or different cultural groups are represented in the museum. The next stage would be to mobilize this wider population group the target population through large-scale events. It's easier for novice visitors to visit a museum if there's a large-scale event which they can intend informally with their family and friends rather than going in it with a small group of a member or family member or a friend. These can be used to foster a sense of ownership of the museum as well as more specific actions like signing people up to receive information about future events. Ultimately the aim of the activity is not simply to treat a small number of people but to generate new regular visitors from a large population group. The museum can then begin the cycle again with a new group building partnerships and audiences and learning as it adapts to different needs. So this is what I think a framework for museums health and well-being might look like. At the center is what people can do to help sustain their mental health and build their resilience to five a day from mental well-being which as I said fit very well with the functions and assets of museums and other cultural institutions. Museums need to work with social partners to create these activities not only for the expertise of the partners but to reach people whose health is vulnerable and for whom museum visiting is not already part of their lives. Through a process of organizational learning based on deep experience of working with these target groups the whole museum can gradually adapt to welcome new visitors from these communities with programs of event supporting novice audiences. The museum the museum's role in all of this then becomes more actively to build new relationships of trust acceptance awareness so that it becomes a catalyst for hope meaning and social connection. So that's the end of the presentation but I just wanted to say a few words about some key books. I've been looking to see what's available in languages other than English. The Cultura e Salute book in Italian is about culture and health quite general and in some ways quite theoretical but it shows that there are people working in this field. Culture and health is a Swedish publication a wider horizon available free online. Museums and health by Helen Chatterjee and Guy Noble is a 2013 book the only monograph devoted to museums and health and more recently the larger book the Oxford Textbook of Creative Arts, Health and Wellbeing by Pete Paul Kamek and Stephen Cliff is a definitive overview of arts health and well-being. It has a chapter by Helen Chatterjee on museums so it's fairly up to date and it has a chapter by Professor Hanlon on the five waves of public health. If anybody knows of other books in other languages about museums health and well-being or other publications I'd be delighted to hear about them but to I think go back to finish on this slide about a strategic framework I would be very interested to know if people think this would provide enough organising structure for people to enable museums to reach larger numbers of people. Thank you very much. So the first question the questions are coming through on the chat line and I'm going to read them out and then try to answer them. One is from Arianna Friedcourt and it's about the 2001 Johansson study about culture activities in general cinema museums and asked about museums themselves is there any specific study museums compared to other cultural activities and other cultural domains. There are studies that include museums in Helen Chatterjee's book sorry that are specific to museums in Helen Chatterjee's book. I'm not as concerned about the specifics of museums. Some of the statistical articles speculate about the mechanism and one of them is that museum visiting and going to the cinema have in common that they're powerful visual experiences generally non-verbal and can reach the subconscious almost in a direct way but if you connect with me through LinkedIn I will send you the list of all the articles in this domain University College London have done studies about handling museum objects and their impact on health and those references are in the 2013 book. The next question is also about the specifics of museums. I don't about whether there's evidence that different types of museums have more capacity for providing well-being. I don't know of any study that has done this. So the next question is more of a comment about museums with more open staff and more capacity to walk with communities and their well-being. Yes, humane museums that have a capacity for empathy in general I think make a more positive contribution to society as a whole. There's a question about museums and with difficult subjects like the holocaust and army museums. The research at the population level is broad and statistical. It's about tens of thousands of people doing something repeatedly and I don't know of any studies of specific museums and I think it will be very difficult to do studies of specific museums. The kind of effect that the medical studies make up I don't think is detectable in project studies. It's a much wider impact than that. I think army museums and holocaust museums it really depends on how the display is done. If the army museum are very old-fashioned and technical in nature it's unlikely to inspire empathy to move people. If it's about the human stories of conflict you can see how it would reach the subconscious where stress can be relieved and empathy can be developed. I don't think that there's any issue with painful subjects like the holocaust. I think they strike directly at our humanity and they seem very likely to improve our well-being but I don't know of any direct evidence for that. Someone is asking through the chat if anybody has experiences of using the health and well-being to described by UCL. I don't know if anybody's responding to that but the study was developed in partnership with 30 museums so the study includes the list of those 30 museums so you can see who was involved in actually creating the study and they were also all have experience of using it. The screen is now buffering. Is there another question coming through? Are there studies of any of the role of national museums in the framework of health and well-being? Again the studies don't distinguish between the different types of museums. I think this is an interesting theme that is emerging from the question. People seem really concerned that their type of museum won't be effective or might be more especially effective. I think the framework will work for any museum. If you look at the center the five the five a day for well-being it's impossible to imagine a good museum that wasn't able to enable people to connect with people to learn something to be able to notice more to be more self-aware to be reflective and to keep learning and to volunteer. So I think I suppose one of our professional vices is that we want to be special and that we want our kind of museum to be especially effective. I think what we're talking about is objects of a huge range which are rich in meaning rich in resonance which engage people and they can be a focus for positive human meaningful activities. Equally you can imagine museums that promote a narrow restrictive ideological sense of identity that limits people's sense of well-being or capacity to grow. So I don't think the genre of the museum or the size of the museum is the issue. I think it's about whether it wants to contribute to a holistic sense of society, society for well-being or whether it wants to be a kind of specialist niche. Which brings me back to in a sense the first question that was on cultural activities. What again in other vices of museums is that they want to do things in isolation. We want to do that project with asylum seekers and we want to do it on our own when actually the asylum seekers or the older people would benefit from a wide range of cultural activities. So it's very unusual for museums to partner with cinemas to partner with live music and but if all of these benefit people it seems to me that these should be natural partners for developing well-being promoting activities. So we have a question from Elizabeth Theonides who's at the National Museum of Contemporary Art and Athens who heard a pilot art psychotherapy program on the museum premises with an art psychotherapist and she's offering a study of on art therapy and contemporary art for those who are interested in studies of art therapy and museums and she says you can find information in the bibliography at atmag.org so that's an offer of extra information. Okay we have another one Victoria Victoria is asking if anybody knows of specific studies of the impact of museums and cancer patients. The and Anne is asking me that I mentioned statistics about the frequency of visits and reduction of cancer. Okay the there are studies of art therapy about for cancer patients that show that reminiscence work improves people's morale there's no evidence that it affects the cancer but it improves people's mental resilience and capacity to deal with having cancer. The study that I mentioned is about people whether or not people get cancer in the first place but again the team of specifics the having art therapy museum talking about museum visiting and cancer these are treatment these are treatment models and what I'm arguing for is that we shouldn't be thinking of treatment models and the numbers you can reach are tiny and it's perfectly reasonable if there's an art therapist who can organize art therapy in the museum or the art gallery and use the resources for the museum but if that takes up a lot of staff time I would argue it would be much better for the museum to use that staff time to increase regular visiting among people whose health is vulnerable so trying to walk out a way that museums can treat cancer patients would might after a very ex-study result in treating 10 or 20 people over six months whereas for the same resource you could get tens of thousands of people visiting the museum and helping them prevent prevent them becoming unwell in the first place and this is why I think the spectrum of engagement is crucial I think trying to do treatment model are us wanting to do things that we're not good at all the people can do them but again as I say you can have these activities in the museum just like you might have a technical lecture but I don't think that's where the biggest potential for the health in the eyes the detailed study of museums as a form of treatment in hospitals as well as in the museum is covered by Helen Chatterjee's chapter in the Oxford textbook on the arts culture and public health so so Arianna Friedcourt is asking are there studies that would show the visiting a museum I cannot clear what it means people who are on medication would improve or worsen the health state of someone with psychological or physical problem I think what the epidemiological research that I summarized shows is that it does improve the health of people who have a pre-existing condition the studies were controlled as I said for age, gender, smoking, class, education but also for chronic illness so if people have a if people in general have a pre-existing condition residential or physical museum visiting does does seem to improve their health just waiting to see if there are any more questions and the screen is buffering so there's no question no further questions everyone okay well thank you so much for the opportunity to raise these issues and to offer some ideas some very initial draft framework on this topic I hope to hear from some of you as you in your follow-up thinking and the best of that with your efforts in changing the role of museums to be more positive for helping thank you very much


Welcome to ITU Telecom World 2018 here in Durban, South Africa. We're very pleased to be joined in the studio today by Rashad Shah, who is the Chief Executive Officer for Liquid Telecom. Rashad, welcome to the studio. Thank you very much.  How do you see that progressing in the next five years or so? I think digitalization for enterprises, for small to medium businesses, and importantly, for the telecommunications sector itself is really, really a critical component in advancing what they do, how they do it, and what services get enabled for customers. Over the next five to ten years, I mean, it's a long time to predict what's going to happen, but of course we're going to see a far greater detail of digitalization taking place, I think, with some real business benefits now being materialized from digitalization. And tell me a little bit about Liquid Telecom. How are you involved in this? Liquid Telecom is a pan-African fiber network operator and telecom services provider. We operate in about 13 countries across the continent. We also operate the largest independent fiber network operator across the African continent, and just yesterday we actually launched what we call the One Africa Network, which allows us to connect from Cape Town to Cairo. And how are businesses going to benefit from the new landscape? The new landscape, of course, is hinged on a couple of key components, one being a data center capability, which enables cloud services to be taken to customers. The second is a high-speed network, which is, of course, a fiber network, which plays a critical role in that. And the third is a partnering approach to digitalization of the enterprise. And that's where we play really, really well in all three of those areas. And what do you think are going to be the major obstacles? I think obstacles there would be, of course, realizing some of the business benefits sooner rather than later. So it's really about convincing the user of the service, convincing the business of an organization, the business end of an organization, importantly, of the benefits and getting them to start adopting the solutions. And so the key opportunities, you think? I think the opportunity is really to service this demand that's out there across the African continent for digital services and underpinned by cloud capability, which is where we play a significant role. I think that is really where the opportunity is, is servicing that pent-up demand. Right. Now, you're here at ITU Telecom World. I just wanted to find out what's the value of you attending an event such as this? Of course, attending an event like this is a great platform for us to connect with many of the partners that we work with today that we don't get to see on a regular basis, but we get to see them at an event like this. We get to connect with our global peers who are also playing important roles in digitizing not just the continent, but the globe. And what about a message? You have a message that I'm sure you've been exchanging a lot of information and there are a lot of participants here, but we're going out to a wider audience as well. Have you got a message for the people who are watching this and listening to this? I think the message would be that the role Liquid Telecom is going to play on the African continent is one about bringing and enabling access to high-speed connectivity to every citizen. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you.


Hello friends, I am Sanjay Gupta. In this video, I am going to demonstrate you how you can calculate factorial of a number using recursion in C. Before starting, you can subscribe my YouTube channel by clicking on the link which is available at bottom right corner of this video. You can download my app Techimage that is available on Google Play. You can connect with me by following these details which are available in front of you. Now coming onto the topic, I am using Dave C++ IDE for implementation of this code which will calculate factorial using recursion. For that purpose, I am first including a header file that is stdio.h. It contains declarations of printf and scanner functions that I am going to use. Then before writing main function, I am going to declare a function that is factorial. So declaration is int, fact int. This is function declaration. After this declaration, I am defining definition of main. Inside this main function, I am declaring two variables n and f. Then I am using printf. Inside printf, I am typing a message and enter a number which will be displayed on console screen while I will be executing this code. For reading purpose, I am using scanf %d and %n. So using this printf and scanf, I am reading a number from user. Now I am calling fact function using this statement f equals to fact of n. This is function call. The return value which is received by f will be displayed with the help of this printf. This is complete definition of main. After this implementation, I am going to implement definition of fact function. This is a recursive function. That's why I don't have to use loop. First of all, I have to implement a base condition. Friends, remember whenever you want to implement recursion, you have to implement a base condition which will be responsible for termination of function calls. So recursion says you can call a function by itself. So here in this function definition, factorial function definition, I will be calling this function repetitively with the help of recursion. So for termination, I am implementing this base condition which is n equals to 0. If it is true, then it will return 1. Otherwise, it will return n into factorial of n minus 1. So friends, with if I have implemented base condition, this is base condition and inside else this fact of n minus 1, this is recursive call. In this calling, n is multiplied by fact of n minus 1. So friends, suppose here inside main function where function call is available, if I am passing value of n is 3, this n which is formal parameter will receive 3. Then condition will be checked. It is false. Then else part will throw return n into factorial of n minus 1. So it becomes 3 into factorial of 2. So you can understand it by this. It becomes 3 into factorial of 2. So here this factorial of 2 is again a function call. It is calling itself. So that's why here n becomes 2. Then next time calling will be 2 into factorial of 1. Then this n will receive 1. Condition is false. Again it will be called. Next time calling will be 1 into factorial of 0. When n will be receiving 0, this base condition will become true. It will return 1. So these 3 into 2 into n 1 into these values will be stored inside stack. When base condition will achieve all these values will be multiplied and the result will be returned into this f variable which is available in main function at function call statement and then value of f will be displayed on console. So friends with the help of this demonstration I hope you have understood how you can implement factorial program using recursion. Now I am saving this code first. It is saved. Now first I am compiling it. Errors and warnings are 0. So we can execute it. It is asking for a number. I am entering 5. You can see the output factorial equals to 120 is displayed on console. So friends with the help of this demonstration I hope you have understood how you can implement factorial using recursion. This is a simple demonstration which is calculating factorial in C program with the help of recursion. And you have to remember that while we are implementing recursion we don't have to implement loops to implement the programs and you have to make all the programs with the help of functions. And function contains 3 parts. I have implemented all 3 parts. It is function declaration at line number 2. Line number 8 is function call and from line number 11 to line number 17 this is known as function definition which is containing 2 parts. First is base condition and second one is recursive call of fact function. So this is all about how to calculate factorial using recursion in C. If you want to watch more programming related videos you can follow my YouTube channel. You can subscribe it. Thank you for watching this video.


Why it would be interesting or fascinating for him or her to study psychology? I have my view of psychology, which is not the orthodox view. I don't think it's a science. I think it's a form of literature, in effect. It's descriptive. There are attempts to scientific psychology, but this is precisely the attraction of psychology. It's simultaneously an extremely creative field because it's literature. And at the same time, it captures the myriad manifestations of what it is to be human. And yes, you can make a difference. You can make a difference if you treat people and help them. You do see results. Actually, in the majority of cases you see results, unless you're seriously bad at what you're doing. In the majority of cases you see results. And you're able to save lives, at least men's lives, if not saving them. There are failures everywhere. Failures in medicine, there are failures. So of course, psychology as well. But I'm also a medical doctor. And when you compare the two fields, in psychology I feel that I have a much greater impact, if you wish, systemic impact on all areas of life of the person. It's a renaissance, it's a resurrection, it's a revival. I'm almost using religious terms. It's a bit of a religious experience because you are very often reviving someone. His personality. Yes, parts of people die.  Here, here, whatever. And the good therapies, or the good psychologies, revives these parts, brings them back to life. It is life-making. It's a life-making thing. I've been a physicist. I have a PhD in physics. I've been a medical doctor, although not practicing. I've been in many fields, I've been in economies. In none of these fields did I feel that I'm making a difference. Of course I made a difference, but an individual difference, a one-to-one difference, a resonant difference. I've been in psychology for 26 years because it's highly complex. Nothing is more complex than the human mind, not even the universe. It's highly complex. It always surprises me. It never ceases to surprise me. And you can really help. If I go to Ukraine, maybe I will save 100 lives. How many people can say this? And in which discipline can you say this? And even if it's not a science, we can say that psychology tries to use a reason, to use some methods, and it's not shamanism. Yes, it's not fantastic. It's reality-grounded, reality-based. A lot of it is evidence-based. It doesn't make it a science, but it's evidence-based. So it's a good practice. It's a set of good practices. Which one generation of psychology passes to the next? I'm a professor, so I'm teaching my students, and they will pass it on. And there are different schools somehow. There is a lot of disagreement about the whys of psychology, why things happen. But there is little disagreement actually about what is happening. There's just a lot of disagreement about why things happen. But when you look at these disagreements much more closely, you discover that it's not a disagreement about reality, it's a disagreement about language. Very often different schools actually are different ways of saying the same thing, just using different language. So if you are very stoic about the validity of language, if you say, what do I care which word I use as long as I touch the essence. If you realize that ego and Eden in Freud's model are just metaphors, not reality. No one captured an ego and put it in a refrigerator. It's a metaphor. So if you realize that this is a metaphor, then the internal family system, which is a much more advanced school, is also a metaphor. It's all metaphors. It's all literature. That's what I'm trying to say. The greatest psychology to have ever lived was the series. So in order to become a good psychologist, you have to read a lot of books of literature. Of course. In my classes, Dostoyevsky is obligatory reading, Musil is obligatory reading and so on. By the way, not the only one that looks like Jordan Peterson, he also says the same. Dostoyevsky is a great psychologist and so on. That's an agreement. The thing is that a lot of people who go into psychology... So it's not only about technical issues, it's about understanding. A lot of people go into psychology. They are technicians. They think the human mind is like a car and they're being taught how to be mechanics in a garage. That's of course not true. It's not true. It's about resonating with the other person. It's about the common experience of humanity. It's about providing insight. Insight is simply seeing yourself and your life from a totally different point of view. Amazing from up, from down. So you need to be creative. You need to be creative. You need to be creative. You need every therapy session, every paper in psychology, is a work of art, is literature. And you need to have a lot of humility, a lot of humility in front of the human phenomenon. If you're arrogant, you miss, you're not a good psychologist. Every therapy session is an experience at being humbled, if not humiliated. I remember a book by Viktor Frankl about the meaning of life. Yes, search for meaning. That book is a living example that even in a maybe in a worse place imaginable like during Holocaust Auschwitz, somehow you can find a basis for meaning. That's because people confuse meaning and purpose. Purpose is something else, goal orientation. That's not meaning. There are many people who are very accomplished and their lives are meaningless. Meaning is not about purpose. Your being is meaning. Your very existence is meaning. You see what happened in Auschwitz? You could not be goal oriented. Auschwitz is a laboratory where you could not have any goal because a crazy SS guard could kill you the next minute. It was meaningless to plan in Auschwitz. There were no planning in Auschwitz. You therefore Auschwitz forced you to focus on the essence, on what matters. And what matters was your being and your existence. I had a conversation with a colleague yesterday and I told her the world would not have been the same had you not been born. The world would not have been the same had you not acted the way you did and the world would not be the same if you were to kill yourself, for example. In other words, you are co-author of the world. And when I said the world, I don't mean Romania. I mean the universe because Romania happens to be in the universe. So the whole universe will not be the same if I were to kill myself this very second. I will have forced the universe to be different. Every action of mine forces the universe, the whole universe, the whole universe to be different. So we are co-authors of the world. What other meaning are you looking for? Your very existence is it. That's the meaning. It's a beautiful metaphor for this one. All of us are co-authors of the universe. But that's a physical fact. If you were to die this very minute or you must agree with me that the world would not be the same. So if the world is not the same, you have an impact on the world. You create the world, you co-author. By the way, this is also in physics. In physics when we try to interpret quantum mechanics, there is a school of thought that says it's called many worlds interpretation. School of thought that says that every time someone makes a decision, the universe splits. In one part there is an infinity of universes. In one part there is the decision, in another there is it. And it may come as a surprise to you, you're not a physicist, but that's the dominant view of physics now actually. But it's also a matter of philosophy here. For philosophers it's also a very interesting issue. Yes, but we can agree if we want to avoid mysticism. We can agree on a simple fact. The world with me is not the same like the world without me. I mean, we can't argue with this. The world with this chair is not the same as the world without this chair. In this sense, I am a co-author of the world. And if I'm agentic, in other words, if I act, every action of mine makes me a higher level co-author. But even if I only exist, that's enough, just existing, I'm co-author. What bigger source of meaning can there be? This is meaning. And this is what Frankl, in my view, had learned in Auschwitz. Because in Auschwitz you couldn't have a career plan, you couldn't invest in your education, you could...  He survived, I think, if my memory doesn't fade me, a few years in Auschwitz. It's shocking, really shocking. So we are, let's say, at the end of this beautiful interview. If you want to add something, I don't know, about psychology, about Ukraine, about the meaning of life, anything you want to add? Ukraine is a parable. It's not only a war. It's a parable of what happens when narrow interpretations of history and humanity prevail. Such narrow interpretations go hand in hand with the suspension of liberties and rights. Regrettably, all over the world, there is an extremely clear movement towards the suspension, towards these narrow interpretations. And I think the reason people adhere to authoritarian regimes and so on and so forth is because reality had become unbearable. Reality is no longer tolerable. It's harsh. You see, I say in some of my interviews and videos, I said that this is possibly the worst period in human history. What do I mean by that? In the 14th century, half the population, anyone between one third and half the population of Europe, died in the Black Death. That was bad. We would agree it's bad. It's much worse than today, in terms of mortality. But you know, if you were alive in Europe in the 14th century and your whole family died of the plague, you still could go to your church. You still could go to the Lord of the Manor, the feudal Lord. You still believed in God. In other words, you were still embedded in institutions, in the social fabric. You had work to go.  You had a world. You had a world. We don't have a world anymore. Family is dead. Church is dead. God is dead. Nietzsche killed him. We are atomized. We are all existentially alone. So even if the disasters we are facing are on a much lower scale than the 14th century, our capacity to cope with these disasters is infinitely lower. Which leads back to the theme of this interview, trauma. Trauma is a new phenomenon. First time trauma had been described was about 100 years ago. Why?  Depression was described in the 17th century. Psychosis was described in the 18th century. Psychopathy was described in the 19th century. Sadism in the 19th century. Only trauma is a new cover. Why?  No, it's a new phenomenon. It's a new phenomenon. It's a new phenomenon because we are all alone. We have nowhere and no one to go to. We are so atomized, so broken. It's a paradox because we are in the most connected period of history. We are connected with each other by internet. It's another confusion between connection and meaning. Again, a purpose and meaning. Connection doesn't create meaning. There's a lot of connection between Russian soldiers and the women they rape that wouldn't render the interaction meaningful. Connection is not meaning. And that's a confusion in social media. I think social. That's why you have friends in social media. This is an abuse of the language. Social media and similar to current. They are abusing language. The same way I'm sorry to say that the Nazis abuse language in the concentration camps where the gas chambers were called baths. When you call total strangers, friends, you are corrupting the language. The language is the only thing that stands between us and a total degeneration into barbarity. When we are destroying language, we are destroying meaning. We are destroying meaning. We are destroying our own survival. That's why we need Wittgenstein. We need many things. Wittgenstein said that private languages cannot exist. Only languages which are communicable. I think it's one of these extremely rare occasions that this genius was wrong. I think we are in the process of developing private languages. Everything is breaking down and we are forced to develop private languages to communicate with ourselves. We are requiring self-sufficient even as far as language is concerned. We are self-referential. We are referring to ourselves. All this is connected to this interview. Don't think we are straying far. This trauma is about this. What is trauma? It's inability to process information. You simply can't process the information. Either there's too much information or the information is too destructive.  Trauma involves dissociation. Dissociation means that you cut off the information and you forget about it. You bury someone. This is all about language. This is all about the termization. Because when you are faced with a trauma, never mind if you are surrounded by extended family of 250 members. You are all alone. When you are faced with a trauma, you are all alone. The extreme existential loneliness in the face of a dropping bomb or a dead person or your pet.  Or you are being raped. You are all alone that minute. Even if you are surrounded by hundreds of other people. Loneliness is the core of trauma and the breakdown of language. So the mind shuts. Everything is buried and Freud was the one who said that when these memories are buried, they bury with them negative energy. It's a process called a reaction. They bury negative energy. And this negative energy is like poison. It continues to work in the unconscious and destroys conscious processes like cognition, emotion and so on. It's all interconnected. Everything we discuss is interconnected. So my compliments are on your questions because they are very astute. And all that you said made me think that all of these issues are strongly related also with philosophy. Strong? It's strongly related to philosophy and with a lot of philosophical problems about our place in this world. I like your questions because they touch on... I think the decline of philosophy is an extremely strong indicator of our condition. Philosophy is not a good condition. Philosophy used to be the mother of sciences. And now it is the step, step, I don't know, daughter or something. Philosophy is mocked, ignored. Only those who can't make it in technology or in science go to philosophy. And we don't allow philosophy anymore to define for us the agenda.  Until the 1930s or 1940s, philosophers told scientists what to do. Kyle Popper told scientists what to do. Bertrand Russell told scientists what to do. Philosophy told science what to do. When the philosophical compass was lost because of the hubris and grandiosity of the sciences and so on, we literally lost our compass. We could not navigate anymore. The first manifestation of this was the nuclear bomb. Nuclear weapons were the first manifestations of it. Where morality no longer dictated, ethics no longer dictated. And so the decline of philosophy is... And we should try very hard to resurrect philosophy as a guiding principle and organizing this. Kyle Popper told not only to scientists what to do or what to think too, but also to politicians. Because his political works are very important. Philosophers set the guidelines. They set the guidelines in politics, in science. That was the job. The job was to set guidelines. They could use ethical systems. They could use rational systems. They could use reasoning, logic, formal languages. But whatever instrument they happened to use, the idea was to guide. And when we discarded these guides, we lost our way. We went astray in everything. And I'm so clear. Thank you very much. I think that we can talk for hours. Yes, thank you. Yeah, but this interview will have to end somehow. Yes, thank you.