I want to talk a little bit about probabilities. When people talk about probabilities, they tend to associate them with things that are obviously random, right? So flipping a coin, rolling a dice, whether your particular stock is going to go up or down, and we think in terms of probabilities where those things are concerned. But where other things in life are concerned, actually I think where most things in life are concerned, we tend not to think in terms of probabilities, but absolutes, right? So you say things like, it's going to rain today. How do you know it's going to rain today? Well, because they said in the news it's going to rain today. Really, it's a probabilistic situation. There's a probability that will rain, there's a probability that won't, right? Now we understand that if it's a 50-50. But if you get up in the morning and it's completely overcast and dark and scary skies and all of this, and the guy in the news says it's going to rain today, and I ask you is it going to rain today, your response is likely to be yes. I say, are you sure? And you say, yes, I'm sure it's going to rain today. Look at it. And I say, is it absolutely going to rain today? And you say, absolutely it's going to rain today. And that's where we go off the rails. Our tendency is when probabilities get particularly high or particularly low, we immediately go to thinking in terms of absolutes. And the fact is there are no absolutes anywhere. You tell your friend, I'll meet you downstairs at noon for lunch. Are you going to meet your friend downstairs at noon for lunch? Well, yes.  Well, I can talk on the way down. You might trip on your way out the door and break your leg and now you're not going to go down there. I say, yes, but that's not going to happen, but it could. And notice all of a sudden probabilities come back into play. So it is not the case I will absolutely meet you at 12 o'clock for lunch. There's a 99.9% chance I will, but it's probabilistic. It's not a certainty. This tendency to think in absolutes causes us to miss some important things when it comes to probabilities. For example, people on average tend to be far more afraid of flying than driving. So you see on the news an airplane crash and you think, well, these are dangerous things, I need to be careful flying. What you tend not to see on the news are car crashes. Now, if it's a particularly bad one, you'll see it, right? But generally you tend not to see them. And so when we think about probabilities, we associate flying with some probability of mishap, but we don't associate driving with the probability of mishap. We think of driving much more in absolute terms of, yes, well, I'm a careful driver, therefore nothing will happen. And what we miss in thinking in terms of absolutes is the opportunity to weigh these two things that are both of which are probabilistic. If you look at the numbers, in 2013, 35 people in the United States died in commercial plane crashes. That same year, 34,000 people died in car crashes. And interestingly, the reason that you see the plane crashes on the television and not the car crashes is because they're rare. The point of the media is to make money selling advertising, right? Of course they're going to inform you, but the way they stay in business is by selling advertising and the way they sell advertising is to get your attention, get you watching. And the way I get you watching is by showing you things that are uncommon. So interestingly, seen in that light, in a probabilistic light, the news is really a list of things that you don't have to worry about harming you. It's the things that don't appear on the news that are likely to harm you. So is probability? I mean, it sounds like sort of like there's an intersection between probability or maybe a mix up between probability and like textbooks, psychology, you know, because it sounds like a lot of heuristic models, you know, things like anchoring where, you know, you'll say, OK, well, this person's age might be between 15 and 75. And we sort of use that as an anchor and say, well, it's more likely to be a little older than we might expect. So it seems like, you know, in the way that you're describing of that, you know, a lot of what we consider to be probability is just some sort of heuristic that skews data. Yeah, absolutely. And I would say it's not it's not that the heuristic is skewing the data. It's it's skewing our perception of what's going on. Good case in point. This is an emotional reaction when people talk about assault rifles. Of course, the word itself is, you know, jarring. And so you you immediately associate it with badness. And these are things that are going to harm people. We need to get rid of them. Following your gut like that, you're relying on these these mental heuristics, which are which are are influenced by your your natural biases and emotions and this sort of thing. Things have nothing to do with probabilities. If you look at the statistics, the probabilities, right, the number of people who are killed in the United States by fists and feet. Is twice the number that are killed by rifles or rifles combined, not just assault rifles. And yet we don't have serious conversations about banning fists and feet. Now, now notice what's happening here. We have a confluence of of emotion and fact. And one of the things that that people tend to do that we have to guard against is is thinking that the facts somehow are are heartless. They're not human, right? So if I say, well, let's talk about the probabilities of death. Immediately, people start to shut down.  It's not that at all. If you're going to make a choice for society, we should ban this or ban that or we should invest in this or not invest in or everybody should have this product or not have this product, whatever, whatever policy it is we're going to have for society. You've got to look at the probabilities because you're going to impose a rule on everybody. The rule will apply well some places and poorly others and kind of OK in other places. But what's important is what happens on average, because we're applying the rules to everybody. What happens on average to this society when we apply this rule? And that requires looking at it coldly at the probabilities and say, look, the probability of being killed by rifle in the United States is one half the probability of being killed by feet and fists. So that's not to say that we should be unconcerned with rifles, but it is to say we should be half as concerned about them as we are about fists and feet. So one problem that we encounter with with probabilities is this is this emotional attachment that we have and in the bias of seeing things on television versus not. Another problem we have with with probabilities is we tend to we tend to regard things that we hear repeatedly as being more true. Give you some statistics to look at. So we hear the phrase, the rich need to pay their fair share. Talking about taxes. And much of this conversation when you hear people talk about the rich paying their fair share, invariably, someone will will pick, you know, someone be at Mitt Romney or someone else who makes multi tens of millions of dollars and who apparently paid very little taxes and we say, we'll look at this person. Right. And what we've done is are two things. One, we've repeated something we hear that the rich don't pay their fair share and we point to an anecdote, a specific example. And that combination of repeating this thing and showing an example that appears to support this claim that we're making kind of starts to encode this claim in some order of truth. And when we start to to encode the claim in an order of truth, we miss the opportunity to actually look at the numbers and see what the truth is. What are the actual figures for the rich versus the poor? So this becomes very interesting if you look at data for the United States and in a beautiful twist of cosmic karma, you can find this data on the White House website. And what you're seeing here is the average effective income tax rate for various income categories in the US. These numbers, of course, fluctuate year to year. This is the latest year that there's data available for, which I believe is 2011, maybe 2012. But the data year to year is does not change much from what you see here. And what you're seeing is first off, we're talking about the average effective income tax rate. So what that means is it's not the statutory rate, the rate that by law you're required to pay. Rather, it's, we find this number by taking all of the money that you pay to the IRS. So after you do your accounting and legal gymnastics and you have write offs and exemptions and offshore, whatever it is that you have, let all the dust settle and answer two questions. First, how much money did you pay to the IRS? And second, what's your income? The first divided by the second is this. This is the average effective income tax rate. And what you see is now remember their exceptions, right? This is the average for each group. The average American amongst the poorest 20% of Americans pays about 2% of his income in taxes. Middle Americans, middle income Americans pay about 11%. In the top 1% pay almost 30% of their income in taxes. Now, you could argue whether or not this is fair. And that's an interesting argument to have. But to start the discussion of what is fair, you've got to start from the statistics that currently exist. And this is what we, this is the current state of affairs. So one of the reasons that we, we have this perception, many people have this perception that the rich don't pay their fair share is because we repeat it. You hear it and it must be true because everybody says it. And so I say it and I become one of the people who is everybody who's saying it. And before you know it, this has taken on a life of its own. So with probabilities, be care about observation bias. The stuff you see on the news isn't is likely not to hurt you. It's the stuff you don't see that will be careful about repetition. Things that you hear repeated aren't necessarily true simply because they're repeated. Third, be very careful about using your heart and good intentions to address problems that require the use of statistics. Case in point, in 2001, shortly after 9-11 actually, a teenager in Florida flew a Cezna plane into a building killing himself. There was, you know, many questions about what was going on. The authorities relatively quickly determined this was not a terrorist event. But after some digging, it was discovered that this teenager was on a prescription drug. And there were many other teenagers throughout the country who had similarly committed suicide, who were on this prescription drug. And so this led to a call following, you know, our feelings and our hearts, our good intentions, a call to the FDA to ban this drug. And notice what happens here. You feel for the kid, you feel for the parents, you feel for all the parents of the other kids who have committed suicide and you want to do something. And clearly there's this connection and you'll hear things like people say, well, wait a minute, let's look at the numbers and see if really this drug is causing, is causing the suicide and you'll hear a response. It doesn't matter if it saves just one life, we should ban this drug. So the argument you get in response is almost one of the statistics don't matter because life trumps them. Even if banning this drug doesn't save them, it might save one of them. If it saves one of them, it's worth all the effort. Fine, let's go and ban it. Well, here's, here's what happens when we apply statistics to the, to the event. If you compare the number of teenagers in 2001 who were taking this prescription drug to the number who weren't and the number of teenagers in 2001 who committed suicide and those that didn't, you cross reference the two data sets, what you find is that the probability of a teenager committing suicide when they're on the drug is about one tenth what the probability is of them committing suicide when they're not on the drug. That is, when you put aside your good intentions and your heart for a moment and look, someone say heartlessly at the data, look logically at the data, what you find is that the drug was actually contributing to a lower suicide rate. And why is this the case? Well, it turns out the drug in question was one for severe acne.  The drug was helping this problem and thereby reducing the teenage suicide rate. We don't see that unless we step back and take a deep breath and think about the statistics as opposed to thinking about our good intentions. We came very close as a country to banning a drug far from saving at least one life, banning the drug would have cost teenage lives.


It's going on everyone Sam here late in sports cards ripping one box of 21 22 a penise like a basketball h2 and One box of 22 a bowman that chrome at baseball choice for Chad L. So good luck your chat. See we got in here for you, buddy Start with this select H2 so we got in here down a band Jalen Green Sam D. Aldema Tram it. Yeah, of course. Yeah, I've got a red coming up of Cade Cunningham 14 of 49 There we go Chad Congrats, man Nice one there There you go tiktok beautiful Cade Out of an 8 shoebox Get that magged up for you plus a Zaire William Silver on the concourse got a blue coming up as well that's gonna be Isaiah Jackson and Zaire Williams that is a 19 out of 25 nice one there for the gris Doing well right now chat. I upset Grats buddy pack. We've got Kyle Kuzma and Eric what so all right now? We've got your one box of 22 bowman chrome choice Good luck green on top. That's gonna be nice 40 out of 99 Cal Conley for the Braves Take that for sure nice Cal Conley Up next we've got I thought it was Someone else and we got an orange in here, too. It's gonna be a blue ray wave in 20 open era I thought that was a choreo One 39 out of 150 nice one there Chad. We got an orange behind it Chad That'd be big We do real big 25 that is the 25. Yes, there it is Got orange it's gonna be Isaac daily own on the awesome color match that is orange wave five of 25 Orioles nice one there very Like I said, very nice color match Isaac daily own that'll do a few break right there Chad. Thanks again as always my man. We'll get those right out to you, buddy


All right, let's check this out. Let's actually zoom in. We don't need the mask and let's go Dun-dun-dun, and what is going to be the end? Ah cool. I like this. I like the whole Okay, I think in terms of post-to-pose Right now you have a lot of heart stops In you're not quite out of the woods yet. I know it's a struggle And I think that will be good. That's gonna be the focus Of all of this here was you have the electrical and yet moving in the arms That's all cool. And then you go forward or chop right there. It's a bit fast That one is one of those where you are now off the ground with this and is suddenly accelerating And it's just if you would go this fast you would have to have already a bit more over this leg and Holding this a bit longer with a foot roll so that this leg can actually push this way Fast and right now it's you're moving fast and taking this off the ground at the same time And it just doesn't quite work.  Watch out. This is an overlap. That's not super clean I will keep that arm down and that one a bit higher For separation, you know something like that or that or that or that that's fine, too As an in-between since you are in the polish aspect I would take that and either bring the arm a bit higher a bit lower So you don't have a tangent with the forearm and the pants there And then you go down And that's pretty okay here In real time though, there's a slight feeling of this hits Pretty much the top and this hits or grabs at the same time right there It's still a bit pose to pose I like that you have a little bit of Emmy and settle there And then as you go up, this is better because now you're going up Bring this in and then this comes down.  There's really not much going on You can scrub and you can start seeing some pixels moving But as a whole it really feels like we're going into this pose and stop So that's a really strong pose to pose moment there This Watch out It's like the head and all this Starts to move at the same time Again stronger offsets. I think in your case you just have to really really push for super strong offsets Even though it would look silly and exaggerated. I think you just got to get your brain Into that mode of offset offset offset This moment works better because you have your head turned that stops While this overlaps and continues into this so that's better This is also really locked.  It's subtle. I know that's super strong But again has this feeling of head and arms and body and stop and now again for a moment. We're pretty dead It's not too bad. This one again is really strong that move out and then hold look at this I can again scrub through this section Not much going on you would have a bit of a moving hold Through there keep going a little bit a little bit fingers come up a little bit a little bit a little bit And then you can relax This Gets that stiff aspect of it even though this moves back more this arm. It has that feeling of arms upper body and head here moving As one it just has the feel of it. I know the head is not super locked But what it does have it's two world space or ik or headline whatever that control is called Well, you can see that orientation rotation. It doesn't really change It kind of stays locked You might argue maybe with it's down a bit, but That doesn't quite feel natural as As like changing maybe like as he looks right now you're doing Fairly one axis you would have a little bit of a lean over with a little bit of a wide change in the head And again, we're locking here. Look at this So lock and then everything Moves over together. There's no offset really the only thing that kind of stays is the leg But then again, we're going shoe pose hold hold hold over At least this is a bit of a wing wiggle. That's good. But then as we get into this Everything kind of moves up a little bit more here. There's a little bit of an offset there, but in real time It just feels like again pose to pose hitting this Even though you hit arms and then the body continues to go down And versus that the pose was feeling when I know the route Continues, but what adds to that is that moment of That hit and then recovery a little overshoot there and then lock and then again We're super locked instead of going down Up or bounce down up. What do you want to do? How much you exaggerate? And then again, we're going out where everything moves up Where at this point you could rotate just the head three frames Then maybe bring up the shoulders and then one of the arms goes down and then you get into a one point in that pose and so on That's good though full extension and then coming together. That's nice But that's my the general feedback is that it's More so than usual like It just has those sudden stops and locks. That's a new thing and you really need to Really just get into that head space of just push push your offsets Even if it's not something you want to submit just as an exercise you can just send me one I won't count it as a submission and just really just Exaggerate how much one arm is moving compared to the other or the whole thing And only the head is moving and then the chest And then arms and then body and so on you really have to like push yourself into just one exercise piece Where it's like super exaggerated one two three four and so on where you really really offset like you go through Looks maybe or something like this, right? And it's completely offset and then you can go into One whatever it is like one and two and start overlapping, right? It's like right now It just you have every now and then an offset But then they bam stop and then there's nothing for a moment and then it continues pose to pose And I would I would practice something where it's First you have one body part and then you have another body part Then you have another body part and so on and then you start practicing Where it's more like this one with a slight overlap with two a slight overlap into three and so on Just just kind of I think you just need some muscle memory to get into that habit All right. Thanks. All right There's an email you can sign up you can start whenever you want you can submit whatever you want You get 16 submissions either way a like and subscribe would be awesome. All right. Thank you You


Hello there everyone and welcome. This is Melissa Arma reviewing Krust. This was very very wild, very very whippy and stock is lower, but not for the moment and not for today. And the frustrating thing about this is this was the stop today and we were up in it and it was a great it was a great call. So looking back, maybe I was wanted more out of this. I don't know. Hindsight is always 2020, but you look at this here. We did it. It dropped. It was immediately up. Hit really hard. Boop! Could have got right out. Then it dropped down in here. We could have got out, could have got out. I was looking for it to break 20, 23, 25. I thought, I just didn't think $36 or 20 some more cents was insane. I really seriously did not. But anyways, we ended up stopping in this and we ended up being up in it. And I can't tell you the last time it happened to me, but we ended up getting stock. This is definitely not a retake today. It's flipped completely. It's green. It was red. And again, the market's falling. So this should definitely be red. We were up in this trade and some people did get out with profit. I did not. So this counts as a stop today.  Except for the fact that you've got to hit out of trades. You've got to hit out when you take a trade. You've got to hit out of it. And looking back, to have this be on the, the, I just, gosh, just so. To have a winning trade, turn around and do a losing trade. I cannot tell you how frustrating that is. I can't tell you the last time it happened, but it did here. So, and this also, I'm going to just go over this. We moved the stop and I gave it a slightly more room. And this again is why you do have to have a stop in. So we originally had it at 3760. Then I moved it up. I even gave it 3770. It didn't matter. This is why you have to have stops. Look at where it's at right now. Way through 60 and way through 70. So I mean, I'm actually glad that I'm completely out of this now, but I really wish that I'd gotten out of it in the morning. I miss the morning exit. So we'll, we'll have to see where this goes, but you just got to leave it. You cannot retake this at all today, no matter how it sets up on any timeframe whatsoever, ever. But I was up in this today and I did not get out. And it's very frustrating. So some people did get out. It just, it just broke. And really with the market, I just felt so certain that would continue, but it did not. Anyways, we'll see what happens. Amat's working and we'll see what we get Thursday. Good luck, everyone. Good lesson here on why you stop. So because it just blew through the number. Have a good day, everyone.


Yeah, loam bricks. So this is an example. Melina Buriks was doing her master thesis in Ethiopia with us, what is also open for you. So if you want to go to our slope farming project and she's working on ecological construction, low cost construction for the region there because the traditional houses there, they are deteriorating very fast. So they are cheap, yes, but they are not well made. They make loam bricks, but they are not protected from the monsoon very much. So they wash away. And it's sort of semi good. And so we try to find ways to improve that so that they are long lasting. And she did experiments there and she did make loam bricks. And we want to find ways to keep them long lasting so that the poor people who invest a lot of money with their economy that they really have benefits for at least a generation or two, and not only for maybe 10 years.


What's going on everybody this is Giovanni from the options trading channel today is February 4th, 2021 Thursday What a day in the stock market it was today The account has grown substantially over the last two days. We've made we've captured about 21,000 Dollars excuse me. We didn't capture 21,000. We captured 16,000. We still have quite a bit left over But as you can see top at the very very very top 439,659 dollars and 45 cents that's gonna be moving as we have oil futures We've been holding on to oil for quite some time if you've been a long-time subscriber of my YouTube channel You know that we've been holding oil futures and we keep rolling them over Last time you saw last time I made a video on the account had four hundred twenty three thousand Dollars in the account It's been amazing The big story here is PayPal and Square PayPal.  I don't know I need to do my research And I know you're gonna think oh man. You're the dumbest trader and on YouTube, but They have to be I have a feeling they're connected With one another and any in some form or shape Because yeah square ran up quite a bit now these numbers are misleading because Let me show you why I Wanted to take profits on just one and I ended up selling my entire position I sold all two calls and then I Tried buying the other one in and I started chasing it and I paid a hundred and ten dollars more and That's what you see here hundred and thirty five dollars down, but of course. I'm actually up on that position Today's gain is one thousand three hundred forty nine dollars and fifty cents on that one The position only and I did take profits on PayPal, but I ended up doing the exact same thing I took profits and then I started seeing that there might be potential for more nobody I thought there was gonna be a lot of profit taking because of the earnings And it was just gonna crash down and it didn't so I bought back in at forty nine dollars. It's up a little bit But I did take some profit up 2297 dollars and fifty cents on the day on PayPal Just impressive for me in my opinion. That's impressive Altogether today 10,249 dollars and fifty one cents oil man. It is on a tear Let's take a quick gander at the chart. This is the one hour charts What over the last three hundred sixty? Trading days. Just look at this crazy crazy Just FYI it is taking about about I would say Six seven thousand dollars per contract every cent that oil moves up or down. That's ten dollars per contract So we have three so that's thirty dollars that it moves every time that oil moves a cent Pretty wild in case you didn't know that Still down on Apple, but we have regained a lot of it still down a hundred and seventy dollars and The only two negative positions that we currently own our Apple that is a very legit Negative trade there and square. Well, you know, I kind of screwed up, but we're still in the positive We got into a couple plays today Towards the end of the day take a little profit on doc you sign Bought some Adobe vertical spots vertical on our age restoration hardware and Square we bought some verticals. They're not many Also, we got into FDN calls There you can see you can pause the video I'm just going down the list as quickly as possible just to give you guys an update here We rolled over. This is a rollover. I did it individually. I like it just to show in the account Cleaner for me. It's just a perfect personal preference. We sold the the February 1950 dollar calls eggs egg X HB, sorry and We bought the March we rolled them over took a little bit of profit along the way there Here is where I bought back that PayPal And oh, let's talk about CC IV CC IV. I have something interesting to Tell you I guess and show you the wheel strategy I can get into it more in depth in a different video But CC IV I decided that I'm gonna do the wheel Strategy if you don't know what the wheel option strategy is Basically, you're selling covered calls in hopes that those calls that you sell They expire out of the money and worthless and you get to keep a hundred percent of the Premium that you collected all while still having those shares, but if they if the option actually expires in the money your Your shares will be called away. You lose those hundred shares But you still win right because you collect a hundred percent of the Premium plus the difference of where you bought the option or the shares and where you the strike price at which You sold that option. So I didn't do this correctly Typically speaking to start it off you sell a covered the excuse me you sell a cash-secured put And so and you hope to get it assigned eventually, but you're collecting premium But I have a lot of faith in CC IV. I think it could go to the moon Right kids still say that right to the moon anyways But as you can see here I have a total of 200 shares because I definitely want to keep a hundred shares in case it does take off and I did sell the February 19 35 dollar call. I sold it at 3 30. It's currently trading at 4 35 So I'm down a hundred dollars on that and After hours heck, I think it's trading yet. It's trading at 31 40. So maybe it might get called away We don't know we'll see that's it folks I had a hell of a day today Awesome awesome day in the stock markets yesterday and today. So I'll keep you guys updated as soon as possible I I have my son here today So I just couldn't make an actual video showing my facial expressions of how excited I am because I really am excited This is the most that the account has ever been Excited we're doing really really well with it 439 539 dollars and 45 cents who wouldn't be happy about that. This is a real account I can show statements whatever it is in case you're not convinced, which I don't really care if you are or not This is a real account, but I'm willing to show proof. I don't think there's anybody. This is an honest claim I don't think there's anybody on YouTube as open About their trades and as open as far as their account and how much there is as I am If there is somebody out there point them in my direction comment down below. I think I am the only Real trader on YouTube. Yes, that's a hell of a claim If if you think otherwise comment down below, but I do believe I am the only one on YouTube that actually shows you real trading real trades real money without the garbage of trying to sell you a service or Alerts or any of that. I don't sell you anything here on my YouTube channel. These are real trades This is a real account Let me know comment down below what you think and your opinions. I that's that's what I want to know Thank you guys everybody greatly appreciate your time and watching my videos Don't forget to hit that subscribe button down below if you haven't already Like and share my videos and we'll see you here on the very next trading video. Hope you it's a green trade. See you guys later


Hello and welcome to the session. The question says, find the derivative of the following functions from the first principles. First one is minus x. So before we find the derivative with the help of first principle, first let us learn the first principle of derivative. Suppose f is a real valued function, then the function defined by a limit as h approaches to 0 f at x plus h minus fx upon h, wherever the limit exists is defined to be the derivative of f at x and is denoted by f dash x. So this definition of derivative is called the first principle of derivative and this we shall be using to find the derivative of minus x. So this is a key idea. Let us begin with the solution. Let fx is equal to the given function minus x. Therefore f at x plus h is equal to minus of x plus h. Now let us find f dash x which is given by limit as h approaches to 0 f at x plus h minus fx upon h, this is further equal to limit as h approaches to 0 f at x plus h is minus of x plus h minus of fx is minus x upon h, this is further equal to limit as h approaches to 0 minus x minus h plus x upon h minus x plus x on cancelling we have limit as h approaches to 0 minus h upon h which on further cancelling we have limit as h approaches to 0 minus 1. Now minus 1 is independent of h therefore our answer is minus 1. Thus derivative of minus x with the help of first principle is minus 1. So this completes the session. Have a good day.


Not a problem. Let's say you generated something cool in Dolly, like this image here. And it's cool, but you really wish the background was a beautiful beach. So instead of having to re-roll and hope to God that you get what you want, just go up here and click edit. From this point, you can hold control and scroll up and down to zoom in and out. And you will see a few tools down here, but the most important one is the eraser. With the eraser, you can left click and start erasing the parts of the image that you don't like. And for the details, you can change the size of the tool right here. Once you've removed all the junk, just go up to the prompt editor and type what you want. In my case, I just want a beautiful beach. Press generate and it will give you four new variations with your new background in mind. It's literally that easy and it will automatically try and keep your art style the same for those new variations. It literally could not be any easier. Now you can do this with any image you want. It doesn't have to be from Dolly. If I have an image on my computer, I can go up to the right, upload it, crop it how you want. And let's just say that I want to replace this sign in her hand to an actual stop sign. I'm just going to left click to erase it, type in what I want to replace that new empty space with, press generate and just like that, it will give me four new variations of what I wanted. I hope that helps. And as always, I hope you have a fantastic day and I'll see you around.


Okay. I mean, this has got to be good, right? Like, the benefits of sex have to be amazing. And because, dude, this guy, just to have sex, he's going to be more likely to be eaten by a lion. This guy, just to have sex, is going to spend, like, what, his entire life collecting blue things.  We're going to slide off some penises. We're going to explode some testies.  Something has to make it worth it. What is it? Well, let me tell you. I'm going to write it down for you. I'll tell you what it is. It's genetic diversity. Sex increases genetic diversity. Look back at independent assortment. Look back at crossing over. Think just about meiosis. Meiosis is a long, expensive process. Why do that? Why not just clone yourself? It's the genetic diversity. The genetic diversity is extremely beneficial. Sex is slow. I'm going to give you a little... This is a disadvantage of sex, obviously. Again, it points to why... I mean, the genetic diversity must be phenomenal because listen to this. If you took 50...  These are cloning lizards. There are some critters that have foregone sex. They don't reproduce sexually or they choose. They decide, is this a good time to reproduce sexually or should we reproduce asexually? We had a population of cloning lizards compared to a population of sexy lizards.  My cloning lizards are just asexually reproducing themselves. And both of these little populations reproduced for 50 generations. So they basically did their thing for 50 generations. I am one generation producing however many babies they're going to produce in a lizard population. And the cloning lizards... I always forget my numbers. Are you ready for this? Dude, if there were only 50 cloning lizards that reproduced for 50 generations, would they produce more babies than one million sexy lizards? What? Do you understand what that was? You take 50 cloning lizards and you take one million sexually reproducing lizards. And at the end of 50 generations, the cloning lizards will have produced more babies. But all the babies are identical and are less likely to survive because genetic diversity is seriously beneficial. Sex is slow, sex is expensive, but genetic diversity makes it worth it.  It makes it worth it to almost get eaten by a lion because you've got your hot feathers going on. Why is genetic diversity beneficial? Well, that's the next question. This is where I'm going to take, okay, sex results in genetic diversity. And now we're going to look at what is... how is genetic diversity beneficial? And I'm sorry, but now I'm bringing in parasites.


Monetization also written monetization is the process of converting or establishing something into legal tender. While it usually refers to the coining of currency or the printing of banknotes by central banks, it may also take the form of a promissory currency. The term monetization may also be used informally to refer to exchanging possessions for cash or cash equivalents, including selling a security interest, charging fees for something that used to be free, or attempting to make money on goods or services that were previously unprofitable or had been considered to have the potential to earn profits. And data monetization refers to a spectrum of ways information assets can be converted into economic value. Still another meaning of monetization denotes the process by which the U.S. Treasury accounts for the face value of outstanding coinage. This procedure can extend even to one-of-a-kind situations such as when the Treasury Department sold an extremely rare 1933 double-eval. The coin's nominal value of $20 was added to the final sale price, reflecting the fact that the coin was considered to have been issued into circulation as a result of the transaction.


Cwestiwn 1, Cæsadugdeol. Ie, cwestiwn nid, cwestiwn ni yn gweithio dod am ffwrdd dros y jogd. Felly, cwestiwn ni'n gofio bdeg diabocu hwnnw, eich gweldion ar y corff mwy, ac mae'r cwestiwn ni'n gweithio gwaith o'i defnyddio arnau soldiadau SNP. Mae cwestiwn ni wedi gweithio presidiau neu bwysig o'r hebogledd, o ddalid, wrth hyn, i'n gael sicr o'r gweithio geithagol i'r warchon dawn iawn. Yn rwyny, yr ddaeth y gwahol mul ac oes ar hyn o'r cyflwybr neiddo iawn ac rydyn ni. Arlai ddau'r reguethau cyfaintol o'r ddigreid.  Mae yna ddweud o'r clyw yn sgwrth yn ddiogelio gyda mamfa ar yw gwaedd Cymru, yn ystod gyda i ddweud ar gyfer hwyl, ac mae ei bod yn dod i'r rhai ddweud ynglŷn yn gwneud, hynny oedd ym Mhacolor Cllwyddon yn eu ddweud yn yr oedd. Foddwr yn ffraeg degi i ddweud fy gael ynglŷn, a ddweud a diogelio y mae roeddaf mewn cezia Dogdeal yn ddysgu but still is worried about their own desperate fight for survival there than anything else. Kezia Dugdale. She calls it wild scaremongering. Heres Willie McGonagall from UNITE. We have lost 40,000 local government jobs since 2010, and over the next year we will likely lose a further 15,000 as a result of Scottish government cuts. Felly, erdoedd yn gwybod i ddweud yr oeddaeth ar gyfer bod gydymdeithasol yn ddweud fe mawr o phanodol o'r gôl o'r achos penedig fel y rai. Rhaid rydyn ni'n nawr, wrth gwrs, o fe ddweud o'r credu Cymru i gael yr oedd adrygiadau oerdd. Rwyf y casgau rhywbeth adrygiadau mewn i John Swinney i amendmentu'r trafwy arcaf, ar gael bod ni'n cyffredin gyda grannu'r cyffredin. Dech stato'r prif, mae'r Prif wedi'i gyrsio ar gyfer gydag ei gwych gyda'r cyflmmodig, Rydym ni'n gallu credu cyfnodol ar gynnig oherwydd ei wneud yn cyfryddiaeth y SNP. Rydym ni'n gallu refyeisio ganddloeddau SNP i gyd, ac mae'n gofyn nhw i'r cael ei ddweud i'r ystafell. Rwy'n ni'n gweld i'r ystyried i'r ddweud i'r ddweudio i'r ddweud i'r ddeuig a'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r gael. Felly, rwy'n credu i'r ddweudio i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud i'r ddweud? I was just wondering, the Hezia Dugdale in this chamber yesterday exaggerated the impact in one council by a factor of three. The figures she has just quoted are simply not born out by the reality of council budgets. Let me quote Aburdinshire council, for example, where Labour is part of the administration, there will be a minimal impact on jobs. Our pan тыi, yn gyntafol, taw wgwgiau hwn i hefyd yn gwahodol i'r bwrdd a chi wedi'i ffordd neu dwyllgor. Ar Aberdeen Cymru, gynnyddio siaradau yn Ydyn ni, rwy'n gwybodaeth at gyflugiau. Yr hyn wedi y gwirfaedd, Kezia Dugdale erioedd yn cael ei ddigonwch ar y gwirfaith yma, serious issues, and they deserve to be treated seriously. At the last session of First Minister's Questions, Kezia Dugdale stood up and said that Perthyn Cunross council were going to cut childcare, were going to cut additional support needs, were going to cut early years teachers and were going to cut maths and English teachers. Perthyn Cunross council set its budget later that same day, and they agreed a budget for 2016-17 that has no reductions in early years teachers, no reductions in childcare, it maintains teacher numbers and actually their budget doesn't cut additional support needs, it increased the additional support need budget by 6%. So there is a gulf here, Presiding Officer, between what Labour say in this chamber and the reality of what is happening across the country. Before we go any further, with any more claims from Labour, I wonder if Kezia Dugdale will take the opportunity to retract what she said yesterday about Clackmannanshire and to retract what she said two weeks ago about Perthyn Cunross. Both were flatly wrong. Kezia Dugdale, Mr Dugdale. She's trying to deny that there's cuts in education and we've seen 4,000 fewer teachers in this country since she came to office. She can't re-profile that away. Now, she didn't like hearing the truth from Unite. Let's see what she has to say about the GMB. Here's Gany Smith, Secretary of the GMB in Scotland. Representing public sector workers, don't forget that, First Minister. Government ministers need to take their heads out of the sand about the devastating impact of the cuts that they are making on essential local services right across Scotland. That, First Minister, is the reality. Nicola Sturgeon is the first to line up to set up task forces and summits when jobs disappear in the private sector, but when teachers and classroom assistants and office staff find themselves out of work because of choices she has made, she's nowhere to be seen. This afternoon, the SNP-controlled Dundee City Council will vote on plans to cut the budget for supply teachers, on plans to close a high school, on plans to cut the budget for classroom materials for a decade. The First Minister has told us that more powers would mean fewer cuts, yet when she had the chance to use the powers of this Parliament to stop cuts to schools and save jobs, she bottled it with her austerity budget. How many jobs need to be lost and how many cuts need to be made before this First Minister will finally use the powers that she has? Given that I have already demonstrated that what Kezia Dugdale said two weeks about Perthyn Kinross was wrong, what she said yesterday about Clackmannshire was wrong, I think that people should take what she's saying today about Dundee with a pinch of salt. It's interesting, isn't it? Kezia Dugdale stands here and complains about a reduction in the number of teachers, and yet, yesterday, in this chamber, she joined forces with the Conservatives to vote against a budget that expressly maintains the number of teachers. That is the blated hypocrisy of Labour in this chamber. Kezia Dugdale likes to quote people, but let me quote a couple of her own colleagues. How about the Labour leader of East Lothian Council? He should be familiar to Ian Gray. This is what he said earlier this month. Our budget will enable us to invest in the future through increased provision for education and promoting the local economy. Or we could have the Labour leader of West Lothian Council. We have a budget that focuses on and meets the needs of local people while protecting services that impact on the most vulnerable. Or we could go to Aberdeen. The Labour leader in Aberdeen has today joined forces with the Conservatives to issue a letter to every council tax payer in Aberdeen. That letter says that John Swinney's budget is so dreadful that it has enabled Aberdeen City Council, and I am quoting from the letter, to protect front-line services and jobs for the people of Aberdeen, and to progress an ambitious and comprehensive plan that supports education, new infrastructure, roads, culture and prevention against flooding. Terrible John Swinney enabling a council to do all that. Presiding Officer, the First Minister might like to remember that the Green Party, those notable right-wingers at the back of the chamber there, also voted against her budget yesterday. I tell you what I voted against. I voted against cuts to jobs, cuts to schools and local services. No politician can be taken seriously about wanting to tackle poverty and inequality unless they are prepared to challenge the current Westminster model of austerity. Not my words, the words of Nicola Sturgeon, but her budget used this Parliament as a conveyor belt for Westminster austerity yesterday, and we were faced with a choice between using the powers of this Parliament to invest in the future or to impose more cuts on vital public services. So when she knows thousands of jobs will be lost and she knows the impact this will have on generations of young people, why on earth did she choose more cuts? Not only does Kezia Dugdale's claims not bear any resemblance to reality, I have debunked most of the claims that she has made through reference to the reality in Perthyn Cynross, in Clackmannanshire and in Aberdeen City Council, but let me just outline to Kezia Dugdale exactly what she did join with the Conservatives to vote against yesterday. She and her colleagues arm in arm shoulder to shoulder with the Tories, voted against record funding for the national health service. She voted against the doubling of the education attainment fund. She voted against increased funding for social care services. She voted against the protection of the police budget in real terms. She voted against the protection for apprenticeships and perhaps most galling of all, given everything that Labour has had to say on this issue over the past couple of years. Labour MSPs joined with the Conservatives to vote against a living wage for care workers. There have been a lot of quotes thrown about this chamber today, Presiding Officer. Let me just end with this one. It is from Kezia Dugdale herself. When asked this week, will you come second in the Scottish Parliament elections, Kezia Dugdale said, yes, and I think we've just seen why? Order. Question 2, Ruth Davidson. Ruth Davidson, and I think even that may be in doubt. To ask the First Minister when she'll next meet the Prime Minister. First Minister. No plans at present. Ruth Davidson. Presiding Officer, I would like to return to the growing crisis affecting our rural economy that's been caused by this SNP Government. Yesterday, I received an email from Jim Walker, the former head of the National Farmers Union of Scotland. In it, he told me that he may have supported independence but I quote, he could never support a party, a minister or a government that have been quite so incompetent and frankly naive. He's writing an article to be published tomorrow in which he says that the NFUS should call for the resignation of both the cabinet secretary and his director in the civil service. Here are the facts, Presiding Officer. Our rural economy is currently being starved of half a billion pounds worth of funding because this SNP Government couldn't organise a payment system in time. A system that has already run £75 million over budget and still doesn't work. What is it going to take for this First Minister to get a grip? First Minister, it might be worth just pointing out that in the most recent cap negotiations, the Conservative Party actually argued for the scrapping of the direct support for Scottish and UK farmers that we are talking about today, so that's perhaps just a contextual point that is worth bearing in mind, but this is obviously a very important and serious issue, Presiding Officer. We are continuing to do everything possible to get installments out as many farmers as we can by the end of March and the balance of payments as soon as possible after that. The number, as Richard Lochhead said in portfolio questions yesterday, is now approaching 50 per cent. We are reporting progress weekly to the Racky Committee and to industry and are in fortnightly discussions with banks to discuss the situation. Of course, Richard Lochhead, when he spoke to the NFU, announced a £20 million hardship scheme so that any farmer who hasn't had their payment and is not getting support for their bank can apply for hardship payments from the Scottish Government. It's interesting perhaps to reflect on what the chief executive of the Scottish Crofting Federation said about that. It's heartening to see the Scottish Government dealing with these challenging circumstances in such a creative way in the idea of the Government being a lender, while not new shows that they are doing everything they can to address the difficult situation. We are doing everything we can, Presiding Officer, and we will continue to do so. Ruth Davidson The payments were supposed to be made by December and it's now nearly March. Only the SNP could take that sort of a failure and try to claim it some kind of success. I mean, I heard what the First Minister said there, but the truth is, if this was affecting urban Scotland or the central belt, then the SNP would be all over it. But because it affects rural Scotland and the borders, it slipped off her radar. Let's be clear about this. This is a complete failure of Government. It is damaging people's livelihoods. It's now cost the taxpayer half of what it cost to build this Parliament building and it's still not fixed. Jim Walker speaks for thousands of farmers and crofters who are looking for some action. It's clear that the Cabinet Secretary is part of the problem, not the solution, so isn't it time that the First Minister stepped in and took personal charge of ensuring that our rural economy is led out of this crisis? Cabinet Secretary. As I said to Ruth Davidson two weeks ago, the Cabinet has been discussing this matter on a weekly basis, but Ruth Davidson has just said something in her question that is factually inaccurate. The EU payment window for those payments is 1 December 2015 to the end of June 2016. The deadline for payments is 30 June 2016. That is the reality. She also talks a lot at nonsense about about the costs of the IT system and says that it costs half of what this Parliament costs. That is an IT system to cover the entire seven-year programme of the cap and efforts are being made to ensure that it is supporting those payments. We will continue to take the responsible action of making sure that we get payments to farmers as quickly as possible, but also making sure that we have the arrangements in place through the hardship fund that I have spoken about to ensure that any farmer who does not have their payment or who cannot get support from their bank can come to the Government for that support. I think that that is the right way to deal with what is a difficult situation and we will continue to do so. To ask the First Minister what progress there has been on the fiscal framework negotiation. As I reported to Parliament on Tuesday, there is now an agreement in principle that I think that we can recommend to Parliament that draft heads of agreement will be published by the end of this week. The agreement that we have reached on the block grant adjustment ensures that there is no detriment for the next six years and that there can be no default by the UK Government after that to a funding model that would deliver detriment. In other words, this deal will not allow a single pound or penny to be taken from our budget. It will ensure that the funding for Scotland cannot be changed without our agreement that protects the Barnett formula and will allow new powers to be delivered. The First Minister is, of course, aware that when the Deputy First Minister and I served in the Smith commission, we achieved unanimous agreement that the Scottish Government and the UK Government were equal partners in terms of any negotiations. Can the First Minister confirm that this parity of esteem was respected during the fiscal framework negotiations just completed and will be maintained? Does the First Minister agree that equal partnership in entering any negotiation is absolutely crucial to protect Scotland's future interests? I believe that that is absolutely vital. It was that parity of esteem and equal partnership that meant that we were able to resist an attempt by the Treasury to cut our budget by £7 billion. If we had not had that, then the Treasury would have been able to impose that. The equal partnership meant that John Swinney's superior negotiating skills could come to the fore and protect Scotland's budget. Linda Fabiani raises a serious point about the future, because not only did that equal partnership allow us to protect Scotland's budget, making sure that that equal partnership and requirement for joint agreement is built into the arrangements for the review after the first five years will be essential to making sure that then we can also protect Scotland's budget, and that is exactly what we will intend to do. Gavin Brown? It was rightly welcomed on all sides. One part of the agreement was getting the fiscal commission to do the official tax forecast, and this is a vital step forward. Will the First Minister work with me to convince her back benchers that this is the way to go? The very thought of working with Gavin Brown is bringing me out in a cold sweat, but I will try to get over that. On a serious matter, I said on Tuesday that we had to give and take in those negotiations, and I think that that should be welcomed as part and parcel of a mature negotiation. One of the areas where John Swinney has made a concession and agreed to is around the arrangements for the fiscal commission. I know that John Swinney has already given some detail of that, and more detail of that will be in the heads of agreement when they are published before the end of this week. Overall, that is a good deal, and a deal that I think that everybody across the Parliament should welcome. Congratulations to the Deputy First Minister and to herself on that. In her statement on Tuesday, she said that the block grant adjustment would be based on an annual adjustment to a treasury methodology, which now appears to be a tax-capacity adjusted levels deduction. Is she absolutely certain that an annual population adjustment to that methodology will produce the same result as per capita indexation? Yes, and that is absolutely critical to the agreement. When the heads of terms are published, Malcolm Chisholm and everybody else will see that what we have agreed to is a method of making the block grant adjustment that is required over that transitional period to deliver the same outcome as per capita index deduction. That is absolutely crucial. Can I take the opportunity to thank Malcolm Chisholm for his support on this issue? I think that even before the official Labour position was to support the position of the Scottish Government, Malcolm Chisholm was steadfast in saying that the Scottish Government's position was correct in that, and the support of the STUC, for example. Many others were really helpful in getting to the agreement that we struck on Tuesday, so I would accord Malcolm Chisholm my thanks for that. To ask the First Minister what progress the Scottish Government is making in reducing A&E waiting times. The latest published monthly performance for December shows that A&E performance across Scotland was the highest level that we have seen in any December since 2009 and is the best-performing country across the UK. For course sites in December, A&E waiting time performance was 94.5 per cent in Scotland compared to 86.6 in England, 76.9 per cent in Wales and 70.9 per cent in Northern Ireland. However, there is still more to do to ensure continued progress in A&E performance in Scotland. That is why we launched the six essential actions approach in May last year. That is a two-year programme that aims to minimise long waits in A&E and assessment units by improving patient flow throughout all areas of the hospital and back into the community. We have also provided additional £10.7 million winter funding to support boards through winter pressures. Thank you First Minister. I am sure that the Parliament would like to thank NHS staff for their hard work and dedication for the impressive improvement that we have seen in waiting times, of course, boosted by a 178 per cent increase in the level of A&E consultants under this Scottish Government. With Scottish A&E performances now clearly the best in the UK, comparing favourably with Labour-run Wales and an English NHS where its Tory Health Minister is too busy picking fights with junior doctors, does the First Minister agree with me that taking a partnership approach as opposed to conflict with health professionals is key to building that success? Would the First Minister also welcome health professionals from elsewhere in the UK should they wish to make a positive choice and bring their skills to the Scottish NHS? I would certainly welcome health professionals from anywhere who want to come to work in Scotland, but Bob Doris raises important points. They will be important to patients across the country. We have work to do in A&E and I would not for a second stand here and say that it was job done, but there are two things that I think should give us encouragement. Firstly, our A&E waiting times, I think almost a week for a week at the moment, are better than in the same period last year. Relative to the other nations of the UK, our A&E departments are performing much more strongly. That is good and positive news, but we will not be complacent at all and we will continue to work with health professionals to make sure that we improve performance even further. I am glad that the First Minister mentioned not being complacent, because last week saw the worst A&E performance in Scotland since weekly stats began. One in 10, not treated within four hours, only four health boards met their targets. Can the First Minister explain why and can she promise to support our local and hard-working NHS staff? Figures will fluctuate week on week and there will be a variety of reasons in different hospitals why that is the case. I think that everybody will understand that. Jim Goome talks about the most recent weekly performance, which incidentally saw nine out of 10 patients across A&E departments treated within four hours. However, the weekly performance, although it was lower than we would have wanted it to be, is nevertheless three percentage points better than it was in the same week last year. That underlines the point of making. We are seeing consistent improvement in each week compared to the same week in the previous year, and that is good. Our accident emergency units are performing much better than any other nation in the UK. I am standing here giving that information, but that is entirely down to the hard work and dedication of those who work in our accident emergency units. It is probably an appropriate moment again for me today to thank them for all the work that they do. We all thank the staff for their hard work. The First Minister mentioned immediate assessment units. My FOI has shown that there are 30 of these units now, 15 different names, no common protocol, no monitoring, no reporting, and targets that are unlike A&E range from the four-hour target to none. A Glasgow and Clyde reported that patients could expect to wait, and I quote, 12 hours. There have been 115 deaths in those units. That is the alternative doorway to A&E getting in. A&E stats only mean something if we combine those two. What progress is she and the cabinet secretary making in ensuring that there are proper croto-crawls on those units so that we can see transparent figures in relation to admissions? The immediate assessment units, many of which were established under the last Labour administration, which is a good thing, are different from A&E units. That is why they are treated differently. Patients often receive treatment in those units, not just the tests and monitoring that they would receive elsewhere. Guidance to boards—this is important—is that patients on trolleys awaiting admission in an assessment unit are monitored against the four-hour A&E target until they are admitted to a bed or to a dedicated area. We are also working with the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh to share best practice across the different assessment units, including sharing information on monitoring, and we will be considering with the Royal College whether assessment units should be subject to further common standards. Richard Simpson raised the important issue of deaths in hospital, and I do not seek to underplay that point at all. However, again, for context, it is worth pointing out that hospital mortality rates are now at their lowest level in Scotland since records began. They have dropped 16.5 per cent since 2007. That is another example of the excellent work that our health professionals do around the country. What assessment has the Scottish Government made of the impact of the local authority budget settlement on nursery education? Within the financial settlement for local government, we are funding the additional costs of early learning and childcare provisions under the Children and Young People Scotland Act 2014. That includes the expansion to 600 hours and extension to more than a quarter of two-year-olds. So far, we have provided £329 million to fund the expansion, and we have committed a further £170 million in the 2016-17 budget that covers the first three years of the expansion from August 2014. We have committed to continue increasing revenue funding year on year until 2019-20 to enable local authorities to provide more choice and flexibility. I will be meeting local government leaders and key partners this afternoon at the early learning and childcare summit to discuss how we will continue to work together to deliver those commitments. She will know that, earlier this month, the EIS revealed that, since the nine years of SNP government, the number of teachers in Scotland's nurseries has fallen by a quarter. Many of us were intrigued and encouraged by her pledge at the weekend to increase the number of nursery teachers. I encouraged clearly, but I am intrigued because, when Mr Surgeon was first elected in 2007, she said in her manifesto, and I quote, we are concerned at the removal of nursery teachers from nurseries, and she pledged to maintain teacher numbers. Can I ask her what has changed? Did she not mean her promise then but means it now, or does she have some other explanation? The registered child daycare workforce has increased by 7 per cent. The announcement that Ken Macintosh referred to from the weekend—I do not know whether he just missed it—made that announcement back in October last year, where, as part of our efforts to make sure that we are tackling the attainment gap, I have given a commitment that all nurseries in deprived areas will have an additional teacher or graduate with early learning and childcare expertise working with young children. That is an important commitment, as we try to make sure that we use not just the expansion and quantity of childcare but also improve the quality of childcare to make sure that we are giving every young person the best start in life. To ask the First Minister what discussions the Scottish Government has had about the relationship between Presswick airport and the Trump organisation. Presswick airport operates on a commercial basis. The Scottish Government has had no discussions on the relationship between Presswick airport and the Trump organisation. The senior management team at the airport is responsible for developing business opportunities and we expect them to work closely with local businesses to explore all avenues. I was very pleased to hear Ryanair's announcement on Tuesday that it will introduce three new routes for winter 2016 and increase passenger numbers at Presswick by 75,000.  I had thought that when Nicola Sturgeon took the decision to rightly kick him out of the global Scott network, the Scottish Government had come to regret ever having courted his business. But now it appears that Presswick airport, publicly owned by the Scottish Government, is pursuing an official partnership, a strategic alliance with the Trump organisation. Doesn't the First Minister agree that any owner of any business, but most particularly a Government that exists to serve the public interest, must ensure that the business that it owns cuts ties with such a dangerous extremist? Firstly, while I would probably use more diplomatic language, I suspect my views and Patrick Harvie's views on Donald Trump are not that materially different. It is important to be very clear that there is no contractual relationship between Presswick airport and Donald Trump or any of his organisations, including Trump-Tyrnbury. However, in terms of the operation of Glasgow Presswick airport, European Union state aid rules require that airport to be operated on a wholly commercial basis at arm's length from the Scottish Government. We are not permitted to intervene in the commercial discussions of the airport. We brought that airport into state ownership to save it from closure. It is making progress. The management there, as I have just said, in relation to the Ryanair announcement, are making progress in getting that airport on to a better footing. I think that we should get behind them as they continue to make those efforts. Thank you. That ends First Minister's questions. We are now going to move to members' business. Members who leave the chamber should do so quickly and quietly. People who are leaving the gallery should move as quickly as possible to vacate. I will give a few moments for that to happen.


Most karate systems use dragons, tigers, and snakes as no nonsense symbols for their systems. But then we have Watoru-Krate, which is characterized by the image of a dove. But what does this come from? Well, the name means way of harmony or way of peace, and the dove is a universal symbol of peace, so it was chosen to represent the nature of the art.  When put together, we have a balanced image of a warrior spirit embracing the way of peace, a duality we see in many martial arts. When the art founder, Hironori Otsuka, passed away, the organization split in two. As a result, each one chose their own variant. Watokai retained the original logo with the fist, while Watoru-Yu altered it to include the Japanese kanji for peace or harmony.