trading. Jessica Russett from FIG Securities joins us. Now Jessica, let's take us through these US Treasury yields. Was there soft demand? Hi Helen, thanks for having me. That's right, so last night we did see there was a 23 billion US dollar 10-year auction and that was met with a lot more softer demand than previously it has. It came in at a yield of 2.40%. Back in April that was down at 2.17%. So we have had the yields. There were relatively odd change but they have been met with much much weaker demand that's for sure. Yeah so now what is it because the Boston Fed Rosengren they are sort of warning the Fed may have to lift rates more quickly. What's your take on this? Yeah that's right Helen. He did overnight come out and say that the US economy could overheat if the central bank doesn't raise rates sooner. He also said that he wants discussions to start about trimming the balance sheet after the first or the next hike which that will put it at June and the Fed had indicated that that conversation wasn't going to start until the fourth quarter of this year. So he certainly is talking more to the terms that you know there's growth over there and I think this has come close to the jobs data that we saw on Friday night that came in with an unemployment lower at 4.4%. So I do seem to think there are signs there that may indicate that there will be more sooner rate hikes and more of them this year and that's what seems to be the feds talking to. All right now the Australian government bond yields are slightly high but I wanted to ask you about if you're expecting anything out of potentially the budget reply speech tonight. That will actually be interesting to see what comes of it but there hasn't been really too much play on the budget in bond yields at the moment and so I don't think anything out of that will indicate too much unless there is you know more talk on infrastructure spending or all the likes of that that could talk to growth and inflation in the economy but I don't think there will be too much of an impact on that on bond yields. Now why were yields highest they've been all month on Wednesday? Yeah that's right there was a higher on Wednesday we had the five year over 2.2% and the 10 year was higher than the 2.7 and since then though they have come off retail sales we could then expected so they did come lower after then and which they are at the moment we've got the five year at 2.15% and the 10 years currently at 2.65%. Yeah so sorry why were they higher on Wednesday was that because the budget had been received fairly well? That's right and also there was a $75 billion infrastructure spending there as well that talks to you know higher bond yields as well future growth and so that lifted the yields there that's correct Helen. Yeah so really briefly the federal budget was quite good in terms of bonds? Yeah that's right we did see for infrastructure and growth and inflation there were positives that came out of that I mean a $75 billion spend that's quite significant. There was also that bank levy that has been you know big fork at the moment and in that there's a levy for the major four and also Macquarie but the smaller regional banks they won't be subject to those new charges and on the back of that we have seen the senior debt for the major banks aren't changed but though is demand for those regional banks and those yields have come in tighter. All right Jessica Russett from FIG Securities thanks so much for joining us. Thanks for having me Helen. That's all we have to


So how long did it take me to become a doctor and a cardiology fellow like I am today? So I graduated high school when I was 17. I started my undergrad degree at 18, finished that in about three years. I finished right before my 21st birthday. Then I took one year as a gap year to work as well as apply to medical school and I started medical school when I was 22. And after four years of medical school, I was officially an MD right before my 26th birthday. After medical school, I did three years of internal medicine residency, which I finished right before I turned 29. At this point, I had the option of being a full-time physician or doing even further training. I actually took the first option of working for a year as an internal medicine hospitalist and ultimately deciding to go back to training. So now at the age of 30, I am in my first year of a three-year cardiology fellowship program. So I'll be right around 33 years old. By the time I am a full-fledged cardiologist. If you enjoyed this behind the scenes in my life as a doctor, as well as want more tips and tricks to help you on your medical journey, hit that like, subscribe and follow for more content just like this one.


Oh, I've been scared. I've been scared to make this video. I've been pushing it back for a few weeks But if I laugh I eat the world's spiciest chocolate 6.4 million on the scoville unit. Do you know how hot that is? That's three times hotter Then uh, I forgot what the pepper's called. It's actually four times hotter than the Carolina Reaper But it's super hot. This is super hot. This is nothing to joke about I need to wear gloves if I laugh and if I have to eat this, okay? Why not if I laugh if I have to eat this I have to wear gloves and three two one Now so how's it going one is looking here. We're back in game of another video scary video scary video. I'm nervous.   I'm Please wish me luck seriously wish me luck seriously seriously seriously wish me luck. I'm scared. I'm really scared Look at the thumbnail for this video here. Oh, no Yeah, I'm gonna make a bit. I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna try I'm gonna try. Let's do this. Let's get into this wish me luck now Easy easy. I can do this one I'm scared. Oh I'm fine. Where are you from? Oh, I'm from Korea from Korea. Oh But that wasn't enough and didn't get there's a laugh Oh, you guys have no idea how close I was to laughing at him just saying November Hello, I'm a German. That's going NCT NCT Hmm. Wait a minute. Hello, I'm NCT. Yeah, I mean Hello NCT You can do it. You can do it You can do it. Oh Wait, I just laughed. I just laughed. I just laughed at myself not laughing Okay, let's do this. I can't believe it. I laughed at myself not laughing I thought I'll be laughing at a clip not at myself So I know what this chocolate is like. Well, I haven't tried it, but I gave two pieces to my flatmates and They were in pain for about 10 minutes or so and I was on the ground laughing at them I'm actually I'm at I'm actually I'm at I'm actually I'm at I'm actually nervous. Wait, okay. Let me move Oh, I need a poop man. Is it because of nervousness? Oh, okay in three two one Now that's not that bad. Oh There's almost no more milk. Oh that helped. That's a spicy. Yeah, I'm fine. I'm fine. Very fine. I I instant regret eating that chocolate. Okay. I don't wanna I don't want to talk. I don't want to breathe I feel so dead. Okay, let's continue Okay, um I recommend you guys to not try that it is I gotta continue watching the video as well. Okay Let's continue I will try my best not to laugh.  I'm scared, but now I'm fine. Oh, that always got me They're always got me. It's so hot and spicy my tongue is on fire Yo, young chung. Come on. Oh, young chung is on point Go chance on point I didn't laugh at that. My pits are sweating that he just hit me I'm feeling right here. I'm in pain. I forgot about that. I'm not laughing. I'm not laughing Oh Almost if I if I made a noise, I would have counted that as a laugh.  I've laughed at myself. Where's like I need another I don't like this video guys Another piece of chocolate you can do it You can do it You can do it Oh Is that actually safe to eat too? Is that actually say is it actually is it actually say it too? It doesn't say Doesn't say it doesn't say it doesn't say it doesn't say This better get a lot of views because of this video and it gets a couple hundred views Which it probably will Sad 30k subs And if it's not a reaction on the group they'd like It gets no use again. I can't man.  Oh Wait, I haven't touched it. I haven't touched a chocolate. I haven't touched a chocolate with this hand Oh, thank God. Oh my god. They could have been bad. They could have been bad I just legit touched my eye. Well, my leg is shaking. Just stop shaking. Okay, so three two My shoulder just started shaking man. Okay What it doesn't help what it I mean I mean in a video of Yeah, thank you all for watching this video If you enjoyed leave a like, leave a like, comment down below. Just goodbye


Welcome to this lecture series on aspects of Christian philosophy module 31. So, this lecture will see the contributions of logical positivism, a very important philosophical movement in the 28th century European thought. So, in one sense we can say that 28th century is the century of logical analysis, the century of language analysis primarily. And where philosophers turn their attention to language and instead of focusing instead of trying to understand venturing into reality or world. Philosophers thought that reality or all knowledge about reality or anything for that matter is possible only through language or language there are even assertions which would even say that language is reality. The being of language for example, in the Hans Kiewer-Gadamer German philosopher calls it both continental tradition as well as the analytic Anglo-Saxon English tradition of philosophy. They both sort of took a linguistic turn, but what is so peculiar about the analytic philosophers is the kind of logical rigor they exhibited or rather they were more fascinated by this logical structure of language. And a conception of analysis, a conception of language analysis based on this logical structure or the form of language, the logical form of language which they considered is so central. And we have already examined some contributions towards this line of thought by Bertrand Russell and Wittgenstein particularly Wittgenstein's early philosophy which emphasizes on logical form on logical analysis of language. And here we come across an offshoot of these kind of an attitude in western philosophy in the turn of 20th century logical positivism. And we can see that these other thinkers like the works of Wittgenstein which I have already mentioned, tracked it as logical philosophical and also Bertrand Russell's and many other philosophers work which emphasized on the logical analysis of language tremendously influenced these people, the logical positivism. There was something which they were all trying to commonly advocate, but at the same time each one of them had their own unique approach to philosophy. And we were now trying to isolate or trying to highlight some of those important features which they all commonly advocated apart from the diverse concerns they had with regard to the conception of philosophy and the methodology of philosophy. Some of these features were so common to all of them right from you know Moorishlich to AJ Air the English the British representative of logical positivism. So, that is they were all against metaphysics, so a refutation of metaphysics constitutes so central to the concerns of logical positivism. As a consequence of this they advocate a kind of scientific conception of philosophy there is a notion of unified sciences with regard to the conception of knowledge they believe that the only knowledge that is valid is a scientific knowledge which can be ultimately analyzed the scientific knowledge can be ultimately analyzed into certain basic propositions which are statements of observation which are verifiable. So, that this conception of philosophy and the notion of unified sciences play a very important role in shaping their philosophical thinking. And again in this context it is very important to mention about verification principle and then we will see some of the limitations some of the criticism which logical positivism as a movement faced. So, these are the contents which we are going to address in this lecture, but before we really see the movement called logical positivism and its contribution. Let us see the background the situation in philosophy in 20th century like the advance in knowledge has been due to science. So, this is something which was a very influential factor in the 20th century not just in philosophy, but in all knowledge endeavors all intellectual endeavors were influenced by the developments that took place in modern science and also in technology lot of advancements science had made during this time. And we all know that the two world wars the kind of weapons people have used and ultimately the atomic bomb which again is the conception of atomic fusion all these things sort of made people to view science and its advancements from a new perspective. So, philosophers also were sort of attracted towards the kind of rigor and precision scientific method or sciences in general advocated. In speculative philosophy on the other hand. So, if this is the situation in science what is the situation in philosophy particularly the kind of speculative philosophy that was a fashion in Europe during these time. The philosophical theories of different thinkers were merely personal interpretations about reality. So, they hardly sort of you know exhibited the kind of rigor and the kind of analytic precision which was so central to scientific intervals. So, in that sense there is a clear distinction there is a clear kind of a difference between philosophical enterprises particularly the speculative philosophical enterprises and modern science. And speculative philosophical theories were not empirically verifiable they were. So, hence it is impossible to establish their truth of falsity. So, naturally people went on speculating about what should be the real nature of reality what should be what is good and how do you define goodness and how do you distinguish it from evil what is the ultimate destiny of human life meaning of human life all kinds of things philosophers have discussed elaborately extensively and quarrel with each other. But ultimately these arguments these speculations have never taken us to anywhere definite because these speculative philosophy the domain of speculative philosophy is not a domain which can be empirically verifiable observable by senses. So, that so that we can arrive at a kind of precise a kind of concise domain of knowledge they are only political or emotional reactions to the world. So, in that sense this is very interesting observation by the logical positivist that they do not reject speculative philosophy as in total they do not say that it is absolutely useless they recognize that there is a value, but the value is confined to emotional and political aspects of life. Beyond that if you try to attribute any cognitive value to the statements of speculative philosophy you are on the wrong track. None of these represent knowledge like science and applied science has tremendously changed human life. So, this is what I have just mentioned and in this context what is the job of philosophy? Philosopher does not contribute to the increase of human knowledge. So, here we can see the shadow of Wittgenstein or the influence of Wittgenstein. Wittgenstein has categorically stated in his tractators that philosophy is not a theory. Philosophy is not besides natural sciences it is different from that it is not a science at all. Only sciences can contribute to human knowledge hence since philosophy is not a science it cannot contribute to human knowledge. Earlier philosophy was the handmade of theology. So, that was the situation during earlier period where philosophy was always considered as a discipline which was very closely linked to theology in a sense even to consider it as a handmade of theology, but now with the new world where science rather has very conclusively and very convincingly has replaced religion and theology. So, philosophy here becomes a handmade of science. So, now in this context what would be the philosopher's task? We have already seen this when we have discussed Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell to some extent because in 20th century with linguistic turn philosophy rather has a very specific task. What is it? Number one clarifying the meaning of science, meaning of terms like as Wittgenstein says philosophy is a critic of language. So, it analyzes linguistic expressions and another one is showing that or showing what words do not in terms of immediate experience. Here again you know you can see the influence of Wittgenstein is conception of elementary propositions which corresponds these elementary propositions stand in one to one relationship with reality. There is a kind of isomorphic structural isomorphic relationship between reality and propositions and language. So, philosopher's task is to analyze language and linguistic expressions and bring out this structure. Wherever language linguistic expressions fail to denote the immediate empirical experience, such expressions need to be considered as nonsensical. So, now again if you consider the background the logical positivism emerged during the post world war one period a group of intellectuals, mathematicians, scientists and philosophers even politicians were also part of this painters, artists they were all part of this movement they all began meeting in Vienna under the leadership of a philosopher Moorish Flick. They primarily discussed about the implications of recent developments in logic and in science particularly the kind of contributions made by Gottler-Fregge, Alfred North Whitehead, Bertrand Russell and more importantly Wittgenstein. They began contemplating about the possibility of a systematic reduction of human knowledge to logical and scientific foundation. So, this is one possibility which they explode whether we can reduce the reduction of human knowledge or human knowledge to a set of statements which would exhibit the logical foundations of all language. So, that was the prime concern. They emphasized materialism, empiricism, philosophical naturalism and scientific method. So, these is something which these are the common temperament shared by all these philosophers who met under the leadership of Moorish Flick in Vienna, which is famously known as the Vienna circle philosophers. And they also advocated something called a principle of verification which says that any statement that is not inherently verifiable is to be treated as nonsensical. And some of the most notable members of the Vienna circle were Moorish Flick, Hans Reichenbach, Rudolf Karnop, Herbert Fegel, Philip Frank, Kurt Grilling, Hans Han, Carl Gustav Hempel, Victor Kraft, Otto Neuroth and Frederick Weisman. And it began in 1929 formally though they have started assembling and started discussing various issues. There is a formal sort of beginning with a publication of a manifesto for logical positivism entitled the Vienna circle its scientific outlook written by Karnop, Neuroth and Han. This pamphlet gave a brief account of the philosophical position of the group and a review of the problems in the philosophy of mathematics and of physics and social sciences that they were chiefly concerned to solve. So, according to them all disciplines need to be scientific. So, that is a kind of aim they were trying to sort of pursue. And the influences as I have already mentioned, but I will briefly outline it once again. These philosophers were primarily influenced by the empiricism of David Hume and Augustine Comte, the positivist J S. Mill and Amnerius and Mac, Ennis Mac. So, these are some of the philosophers traditional thinkers. Then from the side of science of course, Einstein's theory of relativity and quantum mechanics were where tremendous influences and some of these people even attended classes on quantum mechanics and Einstein's theories. Then comes the important contribution or important influence of modern logic, formal logic, logical techniques developed by Frege, Piano and Russell and with particularly with Russell's publication of Russell's book, Principles of Mathematics and Wittgenstein's Tractators to which they developed their own unique reading. So, what it used to happen that during their meetings in the Vienna circle meetings, they used to read aloud Wittgenstein's Tractators, sentence by sentence, proposition by proposition and which is followed by long and lengthy discussions on each proposition. So, this is one book which they thoroughly analyzed and of course, their interpretations of this book was primarily influenced by Russell's introduction to Tractators, which was most in line of you know the Russell's introduction of Tractators is very interesting. He interpreted Tractators in his in the line of his philosophy, the light of his it was an interpretation from the light of Russell's own philosophy, philosophy of logical atomism. And this when this people read Tractators, they also did the same, they sort of tried to see justifications for their philosophical positions in Tractators. Now, some of the important features of logical positivism, it was uncompromising positivism, then blanket rejection of metaphysics, respect for scientific method, conviction that in so far as philosophical problems are genuine at all, they can be definitely solved by logical analysis. So, if at all there is a philosophical problem that needs to be considered as a genuine problem, then a solution could be found out with logical analysis. So, logical analysis is the key and if logical analysis leads to sort of conclusions, where you where you fail to find any definite empirical foundation for your statements, for your prepositions, then those propositions are to be treated as nonsensical. So, here comes the symbolic logic on the one hand and the humane tradition of logical empiricism on the other hand, this has influence the emergence of logical positivism. And particularly it is very interesting Hume's distinction between two kinds of statements, we have discussed this when we have discussed David Hume's philosophy in this lecture series, that Hume divides prepositions into two classes or the first one is he calls relations of ideas, where you discuss I mean for example, in mathematics where there is no corresponding reality to sentences are being postulated, where he deals with only ideas, relations of ideas and matters of fact are rearticulated as tautologies and contradictions. In their language again following Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell, they call it tautologies and contradictions. A tautology is a statement, which is always true, which is necessarily true under all circumstances or we can say that it is a priori true. On the other hand, contradictions are those statements which are always false, they cannot be true. Similarly, factual propositions are propositions which are a posteriori, which cannot be a priori true, which the truth and falsity of those propositions need to be verified by means of experience. So, these are the two types of statements, which the logical positivist propositions, which they accept as meaningful propositions. Either propositions should be tautologies, which means they are mathematical or logical propositions, they are factual propositions, they represent matters of fact, something in the word, so that it can be either true or false. Now, sentences that are neither tautologies nor factual are not propositions, they are nonsensical, because they cannot be verified. So, from these basic insights, fundamental insights, the theory of verifiability is being derived by these thinkers. Now, the question of meaning, it is very interesting that all these philosophers of language, something which all of them commonly attempted is to develop a theory of language. Of course, Wittgenstein also does it in his tractors talks about, today we call it the picture theory of meaning, where meaning is identified in terms of correspondence with the world. So, here this I have already mentioned, according to the logical positivist, there are two types of meaningful statements, statements that are true or false by virtue of the meaning or logical form, analytic a priori and truth and falsity a certain by experience with this synthetic a posteriori. Therefore, meaning of statement is its method of verification. So, this probably is the most important, one of the most important statements, propositions of logical positivism, that meaning of a statement is its method of verification. So, a meaning is sort of understood in terms of verifiability. If a particular statement is verifiable, then it is meaningful and verifiable is again a very definite term, it means empirical observation or empirically verifiable. We know the meaning, if we know the conditions under which the statement is true or false. So, when I say there are 20 chairs in this room, if this statement if there are actually 20 chairs in this room, my statement is true. So, I should know in order to know the statement, in order to understand the statement there are 20 chairs in this room, what I should know is I should know the condition under which this statement should become true. And there might not be even one chair in this room, but still it is a meaningful statement, because I can understand its meaning, because again I know what conditions would make this statement true. And in this context they develops their rejection of metaphysics and what the logical positivist argue is that many metaphysical utterances are due to the commission of logical errors. And again enquire from what premises the metaphysicist deduce this proposition. So, ultimately concluding that, inferring that the kind of metaphysical propositions or metaphysical utterances, which philosophers have been making since time immemorial, where all due to certain logical errors, certain confusions with regard to the logic of language. This is again an original Wittgensteinian idea, which these people have modified a little bit, enquire from what a premises the metaphysicist. So, in order to know whether this proposition or any proposition for that matter, whether it is meaningful or not, we have to see from where it is being deduced. He too needs to begin, this is what the logical positivist would argue even the metaphysician would need to begin as other men do with the evidence of his senses. So, it should be seen, it should be experienced by sense organs. What valid process of reasoning can possibly lead him to the conception of transcendent reality. There is a conception of transcendent reality, which many metaphysicians advocate, but what is the basis of talking about such a transcendent reality. Are there any sense, any kind of evidence of the senses that suggests that such a reality exist. The very notion of transcendent reality suggests that senses cannot capture it, then how can you talk about it. So, all talk about such a transcendent reality is bound to be nonsensical. Again this is a quote from A. J. Air, a very prominent advocate of logical positivism from the English speaking world. And actually Air has attended some of their meetings and also introduced logical positivism to the English speaking world, because basically the developments took place in Vienna. And many of them were Germans and they were all reading Wittgenstein's original German edition of Tractatus. And in that sense, you know, Air's contribution is phenomenal, because he is the one who has introduced this new movement to the English speaking world. So, he says in this famous book, Language, Truth and Logic, which is actually a preliminary assessment on the contributions of logical positivism. So, I read a quote, the traditional disputes of philosophers are for the most part as unwarranted as they are unfruitful. The surest way to end them is to establish beyond question what should be the purpose and method of philosophical enquiry. So, you need a purpose and you also need to adopt a method, it is like science. So, in the line of science, you can see philosophy in the line of science, where science has a purpose and also a definite method. So, similarly philosophy should also need a method and also a purpose to serve. So, here a rejection of metaphysics through language analysis, here the impossibility of a transcendent metaphysics is not a matter of fact, but a matter of logic. This is something which I have already mentioned that their method is language analysis and logical analysis of language. So, if they say that the conception of transcendent reality is impossible to be advocated, because you cannot say anything about it. And the reason for that is not something which is a matter of fact, but a matter of logic. Logically they say that logically it is not possible, because the logic of language suggests that linguistic expressions when they attempt to transcend the boundaries of sense experience, they tend to be nonsensical. And here it is interesting to have a comparison with the position adopted by or the methodology adopted by Immanuel Kant, who also did something like very similar kind of an exercise, but of course, not with an emphasis on logical analysis of language, rather for Kant it was a matter of fact, the kind of metaphysics, the impossibility of a metaphysics is a matter of fact affair and hence to draw a limit to human thinking. But Wittgenstein on the other hand, as we have already seen when we have discussed the Tractatus, he says that in order to draw a limit to thinking, we should have to think both sides of the limit, which is actually not possible. Since that is not possible, the only place where we can draw the limit is language, which is nothing but which is assumed as the expression of thinking. So, that is the reason why philosophers of language adopt or take a linguistic turn. The emphasis on language, rejection of transcendent metaphysics not by merely criticizing the way in which it comes into being, but by language analysis. A criticism of the nature of the actual statements which comprise metaphysics. So, here again metaphysical statements are analyzed. The so called propositions of metaphysicians are taken for analysis and when you apply the principle of verifiability, they fail to satisfy the criteria and they are treated as nonsensical. Statements that transcend the limits of all possible sense experience have to be literal, have no literal significance though they are nonsensical. And logical positivism says that the rule which determines the literal significance of language is the criteria and the metaphysician produces sentences which fail to conform to the conditions under which alone a sentence can be literally analyzed. What is that condition under which alone as a sentence can be literally significant. Here comes the principle of verifiability and here is a quote from A. J. S. Nother book, Logical Positivism. I quote, the originality of the logical positivist lay in the making the impossibility of metaphysics depend not upon the nature of what could be known, but upon the nature of what could be said, not what could be known, but what could be said. Again their charge against the metaphysician was that he breaks the rules which any utterance must satisfy if it is to be literally significant. A. J. Ayer, Logical Positivism.  Again they pretend to be cognitive like the statements of metaphysicians look like other ordinary kinds of statements. See when I say God exists or God will punish you for example, God will punish you if you steal money from me. This is one statement which I would make. Again I can also make another statement which would say that your father will punish you if you steal money from me. These two statements are grammatically alike, but they are actually not. There is a fundamental difference. The first statement God will punish you if you steal money from me is a metaphysical statement or rather it is a meaningful statement. It does not signify anything, but the second statement has a definite meaning. We know what does it mean. So, the logical positivist would say that these such statements pretend to be cognitive while they are not. And again they might have emotive or poetic value, but are literal nonsense. Again as I have already pointed out they were all influenced by Wittgenstein's Tractatus. This aspect needs to be a little elaborated because Wittgenstein's Tractatus played a very important role in shaping some of the basic ideas of logical positivism. As I mentioned earlier this logical positivist whenever they used to meet they would read Tractatus allowed and each sentence each proposition was analyzed. So, particularly the notion of elementary propositions and their correspondence with fact. So, we can see that the kind of verification principle which they developed is derived from this conception, this original conception of Wittgenstein which talks about which postulates a set of propositions as elementary propositions which directly correspond to reality. So, they are sort of laid against reality. There is a kind of one to one correspondence. They are very close to reality. They sort of directly represent reality. So, postulating a set of such elementary propositions is very interesting and very important for logical positivist. So, they would say that these statements are reports of observation that touch on by reference to which all other statements were empirically verified. So, you can basically analyze your entire linguistic apparatus. You make it you subjective for logical analysis and finally, you can reach these elementary propositions. If you succeed in reaching these elementary propositions which are direct observation statements, then your statement or your propositions are considered as meaningful. So, this is the kind of derivation which the logical positivist made from Wittgenstein's original position. Again the principle of verification is derived from this. Now, let us see the verification principle a little in detail. It asserts that the meaning of a proposition is its method of verification. Meaning is the method of verification. Verification is the criterion by which we test whether ascendance expresses a genuine proposition about a matter of fact. So, if a particular statement does not express a genuine proposition which means that it does not represent a fact in the world. Actual representing and possible representing this is sort of taken care of because for them it is a method of verification which is important. I should only know whether that particular statement be verified by adopting certain methods. For instance if I say that there is no life in the moon or there is no water in the moon. This is a meaningful statement for the logical positivist. Though at present in the case of moon of course, we have now gone to moon and that may be possible, but there is make the same statement about Saturn. A planet which we have never been successful in reaching or sending things which you have already sent to Mars and other places in the in moon or as well. So, when I make a statement about there is no water in Saturn. This is a meaningful statement because this can be verified or rather I know the method by means of which I can verify it. For that I have to go to Saturn and observe it, but if I say there are two gods or there are many gods or absolute is one. These are statements where I do not know the method by means of which I can verify them. Since I do not know this method, these statements are to be treated as not verifiable and hence nonsensical. All meaningful statements including the most abstract scientific hypothesis can be ultimately analyzed to these elementary statements which stand for observable events. So, this is what the emphasis on logical analysis would yield to because you can every statement there are certain very abstract scientific theories which cannot be directly verified, but yet they are meaningful because they can be analyzed. They can be analyzed into simple elementary propositions which correspond to reality which are directly verifiable. So, this fact of logical analysis would reveal that even such abstract statement which do not apparently stand directly in correspondence with reality are meaningful. In AJ Air I quote, a sentence is factually significant to any given person if and only if he knows how to verify the proposition which it purports to express. That is if he knows what observations would lead him under certain conditions to accept the proposition as being true or reject it as being false. And here when you talk about verification actually this is something which AJ Air has enumerated. He would say that there are basically four types of verification, there is practical verification which is practical. I can verify it there are 20 chairs in this classroom is something which I can verify by observation right now, but there are certain statements which are not so easily and verifiable in this way in the practical sense of the term, but they are in principle we can verify them. We know that if certain conditions are met I can verify them then there is a strong verification and weak verification we will very briefly see what are they. So, observations are possible in practice in order to confirm whether a proposition is true or false. In practice it is possible that I can see I can count whether there are 20 chairs here or not in practice I can do that. On the other hand verifiable in principle means propositions for which we do not have a practical means of verification that may still be meaningful if we can theoretically verify them. Then comes the strong verification if and only if its truth could be conclusively established in experience. Difficult to hold on many occasions like all men are mortal for example, bodies expand when heated all these are all bodies expand when heated for instance or all men are mortal where there is a reference to all these are statements which we all know are sort of verifiable they are meaningful statements, but at the same time if you apply the criteria of strong verifiability which means that statement should be conclusively established in experience. If make such statements directly stand they may not pass the test of this criteria the strong verifiability. Such general propositions of low are designed to cover an infinite number of cases hence cannot be conclusively verified for example, when I say all men are mortal I include under this all men every human being who are born died and yet to be born. And weak verification is if it is possible for experience to render it probable there is no strong conclusive verifiability asserted here the question is would any observations be relevant to the determination of its truth or falsehood. If not the statement under consideration is not so it is very modest that is the only requirement it has to meet. So, what is weak sense of verifiability little bit elaboration by A. J. Air he is adds a genuine factual proposition need not be equivalent to an experiential proposition or any finite number of experiential propositions, but simply that some experiential proposition can be deduced from it in conjunction with certain other premises without being deducible from those other premises alone. But as like all of us would have by now understood some of the important points which the logical positivist were trying to assert they started out with the concept of I mean their fundamental purpose is the rejection of metaphysics the negative side and on the positive side to arrive at a scientific conception of knowledge how a universal science is possible. So, that all knowledge is scientific there is no confusion. So, that is the kind of purpose with which the logical positivist actually began their enterprises and then in that process they thought that it is important to reject refute metaphysics and they adopted the methodology of language analysis and also the principle of verifiability there are different ways in which this is understood this is what we have seen. But this principle of verifiability has got certain difficulties for example, we can say that you know as we have seen they depend on a lot on the availability on the possibility of elementary propositions. The elementary propositions which stand directly in touch with reality they are directly in contact with reality. So, but the question is are elementary statements infallible you say that they are directly in touch with reality, but to what extent they are infallible you are you probably are mistaken then again do they refer to the private sensations of the speaker or to the public physical events again like when I say the temperature of this room is 28 degrees centigrade. This is something which a statement which I make about the world and whether this statement is about a private sensation or a public physical event are they mere records of the subjects immediate experience. How can we overcome the threat of solipsism if that is the case again the transition from the subjects private experience to the experiences of others and to the public world is always a problematic thing and again the principle of verification is not itself verifiable. So, logical positive it seems to be assuming the validity of the verifiability principle. Now, comes the notion of unified sciences as I already mentioned the logical positive is we are trying to develop notion of unified science where by developing a common language in which all scientific propositions can be expressed. There again the approaches language analysis the approach of language analysis they thought that they can actually create a language a common language which all scientific propositions can express through that language. Any of these logical positivist actually attempted at developing such languages artificial language common language. See for example, Karnamp has endeavored in doing something very similar to this all knowledge can be codified in a single standard language of science which ultimately show the one to one correspondence between language and reality. Then again carry out through several reductions or explanations of the terms to more fundamental expressions that stand for observation. So, this is analysis though you can have reductions or explanations of the terms to more fundamental expressions that stand directly in correspondence with reality. Actually it is not right to say that it is correspondence with reality it is something which we observe again the emphasis is on observation. So, the problem is that whether it is an observation is private or not is a question like what we have raised just before this. Now, scientific theory is also a kind of as I already mentioned a very abstract network of knowledge an axiomatic system not directly verifiable because it is an abstract formal system, but empirical interpretation of these abstract system is possible by means of those statements that establish a correlation between real objects and the abstract concepts. So, there is something called rules of correspondence. So, we can analyze these abstract theoretical formal state system into empirical statements and finally, two elementary statements which directly are in touch with reality. And scientific theory needs such rules of correspondence for empirical interpretation and verification. We can see the summary of scientific theory how scientific theory theories are constituted. So, you can see that you know there is there are logical terms out of which science would have certain logical statements and only logical terms would be there. Then you have observational terms where out of which you make observational statements which include observational and logical terms. And then you have theoretical terms where the theoretical statements which include logical terms and observational and logical terms which include both. So, the pure theoretical statements and mixed theoretical statements out of which the theoretical statements are composed of. So, this is the picture of scientific theory, where again ultimately this can be reduced into statements, which directly corresponds to reality. All sciences share a common language. So, this seems to be the most important, most fundamental assumption of this notion of unified science. All scientific terms could be restated as or reduced to a set of basic statements or protocol sentences describing immediate experience of perception. So, they are called protocol sentences. They directly stand in correspondence with reality. Reduction of all scientific terms to terms of physics is possible that is according to the logical positivist and the procedures for testing statements in the various sciences are basically the same. That is analysis. There is a logical analysis of language based on the principle of verifiability. And in this context, according to the logical positivist the primary function of philosophy is not to propose basic principles of knowledge. Here we can see the legacy of Wittgenstein. It was Wittgenstein who said that philosophy is not a theory. Philosophy will never give you knowledge. So, again not to construct a detective system of meaningful propositions by offering the consequences of basic principles of knowledge as a complete picture of reality. So, that is not the purpose of philosophy at all. And philosophy in that sense has a very modest purpose to serve. What is it? Philosophy clarifies the logical relations of empirical propositions. So, it is a logical analysis ultimately what philosophy does with which clarifies philosophically clarifies the logical relations of empirical propositions. This is what the overall philosophical position of logical positivism is all about. So, we can see that the important points to be remembered are number one. They were influenced by the development in sciences and they were trying to develop a scientific method, a scientific philosophy, a scientific conception of philosophy. And in that connection a unified science where all knowledge can be reduced to certain propositions which are directly observable. Number two rejection of metaphysics and number three principle of verifiability. When we try to make a final assessment about logical positivism, we can see that the impact of scientific developments in philosophy in their philosophical principles and theories were quite evident. Philosophy of logical analysis. So, you can see that the emphasis on logical analysis which distinguishes the logical positivist movement from other philosophical movements. Despite all their limitations, they were they were as quite assertive about the logical rigor which needs to be adopted when you philosophize. The attempt to make philosophy scientific. This is again a very unique attempt which was done by these thinkers and the question is whether it is a failed attempt or not. Actually, this is an interesting question which if you try to see whether logical positivism was a failure or not.  A philosophy as these people themselves claim is not a scientific theory. If it is a scientific theory, then you can say whether it has succeeded in attaining certain goals or making certain products or whatever. The philosophy is not a theory about which we can say that it was a successful theory or not, but rather they were sort of trying to point out that there are certain things which are to be treated as important and the criteria for understanding knowledge. In that sense, their philosophy is a very important moment and the most important contribution of these philosophy is to logical analysis of language and the kind of as I already mentioned logical rigor they have exhibited when they philosophize. That is quite remarkable and in that course, many of the old philosophical problems were exposed, but overall there are hardly any supporters for these philosophical moment in today's world, though they themselves understood the limitations of their philosophy and try to overcome this. We have already seen how AJ Air had formulated the principle of verifiability in different ways and Air also discusses the principle of falsifiability proposed by Karl Popper. It was a kind of response to the limitations and failures of the principle of verifiability, but ultimately philosophy goes on and the philosophy of language, the kind of the brand of philosophy these people were trying to advocate is not really relevant today in the sense that there are hardly any philosopher who would advocate this philosophical position in today's world, but the historical importance of this moment is no doubt extremely important. We will wind up this lecture now. Thank you.


If you could ask God one question, what would it be? I think the vast majority of people would ask him why bad things happen to good people. It's a good question, but I think I'd ask him something a little bit different. God, why do you let us experience the beauty of a cool morning sunrise, or provide us with such an awe-inspiring sunset? Why do you allow healthy babies to be born into loving families? Why do you allow the rain to fall on the dry soil just in the nick of time? God, why do you allow a grandchild to make it to their grandparents' deathbed, just in time to say one last, I love you? You see, the question I want to ask is, why do good things happen to broken people? I think I know the answer. And maybe if we look a little closer each day, we could all see it. Because he loves us, even though we don't deserve it.


Hey everybody, Dr. O here. In this video I'm going to talk about the differences between the male and female pelvis. So there actually are very few bones where you see major differences between the male and female. But this is going to be the one, this is all, this is why this is the bone that's the best or the bones that's the best for determining sex of a skeleton. Two glaring differences, the males generally, the male pelvis is going to be thicker and heavier because carrying more body weight, more muscle, that kind of thing. But everything about the female pelvis is all about that birth canal. So the female pelvis is going to be wider than the male pelvis. Even though the male pelvis is bigger and the bones are thicker, the female pelvis is going to be wider. You can tell that by looking at the distance between the anterior superior iliac spines. So the female pelvis is going to be wider. The ischial tuberosities in a female on the back there where we're sitting right now are also going to be farther apart. So another clear difference is the sub pubic angle is going to be greater than 80 degrees in a female, less than 70 degrees in a male. So the distance between the anterior superior iliac spines and the sub pubic angle are the two key things to remember as far as what makes the female pelvis wider. Other key difference, the sacral promontory or the front of that sacrum is actually not as anterior in a female, again to make that birth canal larger. And that's why you see the pelvic cavity itself, that pelvic brim or pelvic inlet is going to be much more oval and larger and more like heart shaped in the male. So it's all about the room for the baby there in the birth canal. So those are the key differences between the male and female pelvis. I hope this helps. Have a wonderful day. Be blessed.


Today, YouTube turns 10 years old, soon the intro branding feature will be removed from all channels, and Machinima and Collective Digital join forces to go after copyright trolls. Hello and welcome to YouTube News for February 18th, 2015. I'm your host Alex and I'll be walking you through some of the most important and interesting topics revolving around the YouTube platform. First up, YouTube officially turned 10 years old on Valentine's Day. It's so crazy how old this platform is, but to be fair, the first video wasn't actually uploaded to the website until April 23rd of 2005. To any of you guys, know what video that was. It's titled Me at the Zoo and it was filmed by Jod Karim, one of the founders of YouTube, talking about the elephants at the zoo he was at. If you've never seen it for yourself, it's 18 seconds long and I'll leave a link in the description down below if you want to view it for yourself. Anyways, happy birthday, 10th birthday to YouTube, and may your next 10 years be even more awesome. Next up, YouTube is removing the 3 second branding intro feature from all channels on March 31st. I'm not going to cover this in detail myself because George actually already did in a video and explained all the details himself, so click here to see how this is going to be affecting channels in the very near future. Next up, MCN's Machinima and Collective Digital are joining forces to sue FreePlay Music for being a copyright troll. FreePlay Music is a company that claims to provide many creators with music to use in the videos that they use themselves for free, but when you dig a little bit deeper, you find that almost all of their music requires licensing and payments for those licenses. And then beyond that, FreePlay actually feels that Content ID isn't enough of a deterrence to prevent creators from using their music without paying, so it's working together with Tunesat, another company, and they're threatening legal action against these video creators if they do not comply with their licensing demands. So with that, Machinima and Collective Digital feel like they have enough ground to actually sue for bait and switch and then extorting creators for more money. So with that in mind, I actually kind of want to plug a project that I've been working on called Beat. You may have heard of it. It's part of the Freedom Network, and it's the freedom solution to provide our partners with a whole bunch of music, awesome music by the way, that they can use in their videos for free as long as they are a partner with the Freedom Network. We launched on February 14th, Valentine's Day, or YouTube's 10th birthday, and we'll be uploading three tracks per week to the channel, so head on over to youtube.com slash beat and hit that subscribe button. And follow us as we release a whole bunch of really awesome music for you guys to use in all of your videos. And if you're a music artist, you can also submit your music through a form that I will link in the description as well, and you can get your music on the channel and have our partners use it in their videos as well. Anyways, guys, that's it for me this week. Be sure to tune in next Wednesday for a whole bunch more YouTube news. Thanks for watching. So it's all speculation at this point. And last up, remember the story that I brought up last week about Nintendo's creator program? If not, click here to watch last week's episode and get caught up.


So this one says an absorption in an electronic spectrum is recorded at 17,000 wave numbers. So remember, wave numbers is centimeters to the minus one. What does this correspond to in nanometers? So that's a wavelength, wave numbers, and nanometers is also a wavelength. So let's convert this to nanometers. So how do we do this? The first thing you want to remember is kind of the units here giving you a clue, okay? So it's saying that this is in wave numbers. So it's something like this. You want to write it down. 17,000 divided by one centimeter. That's what it's saying, okay? Because the minus one, that's under the denominator, right? So what we want to do is get this in nanometers, right? So we're going to flip that thing over because we want to put it in centimeters to start out with it. So in other words, we have 17,000 on the bottom and one centimeter on the top. When we do that, I'm going to go up to meters and then back down to nanometers, okay? So 100 centimeters is one meter like that and then what do we have? One meter is one times ten to the nine nanometers like that, okay? So cancel, cancel, cancel, cancel. So wave numbers to nanometers, this is how you do it, okay? So now all we do is plug and chug because our units here are what? Nanometers, right? So we've got the units, everyone. So ten to the ninth divided by 100 divided by 17,000 and I get... So two significant figures, okay? So remember this is two significant figures because it says 588 in the answer but it's two significant figures, it's going to be 590 nanometers. So if you've got a band that comes at 17,000 wave numbers, it's going to be coming at a wave length of 590 nanometers. So if there's a question, ask before the thing turns off.


amar Jackson is a little overrated. Baltimore will probably franchise tag him anyway. Steven's asking, what about this in our, Sean Payton gets the job in Houston and he brings Tom Brady over for two years to develop a new quarterback. Does Sean Payton want that job in Houston? He says, he says he does, but I think he's just trying to raise the salary, raise his salary. I think Sean Payton kind of wants to get into win now mode. I don't know what teams can he win now with. Just have to use another six round pick to get another Tom Brady. Yeah, I mean, look at Brock Purdy who was the last pick in the draft and he's winning playoff games. You know, how our first rounder is doing.  If I'm the Niners, what do I do? But what's the money situation for the quarterbacks? Brock Purdy must be on a rookie deal, right? So he's got four years. And what about Trey Lance? I mean, he has multiple deals or multiple years, right? Trey Lance is on a four year deal. Actually, he'll be on his last year, his fourth year next year. I think you keep both. I think, when's Trey Lance supposed to come back? Oh, fully healed 10 to 12 weeks. That's November 24th, right? So December's 24, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. This Thursday will be week nine. So he'll be fully healed within a few weeks, according to the Google search that I did according to NinersNation.com. I would keep both. They're under contract. Why not keep both Brock Purdy and Trey Lance? And then you have him fight in camp. You're only committed to them for a couple years. You know, maybe three more years for Brock Purdy, two more, one more year for Trey Lance. Garoppolo is a free agent.  And then you just kind of roll with it. I think Kyle Shanahan's like good enough of a coach where kind of, I mean, if he's just kind of proven that it really doesn't matter who's at QB, the rest of their team's so good. Like Debo and Ayaak and Christian McCaffrey and a solid offensive line and an excellent defense, you know, that can score points, that puts their offense in good positions and his play calling is so good, you know. Knows how to adapt to his players, get the best out of them. And so I think like, you just have a QB battle, right? It would be a heck of a battle, right? Oliver's saying, who's from the Bay Area? Oh, Brady to San Francisco. Yeah, that's always been a thing, right? Brady to San Francisco, he is from the Bay Area. Wine country, maybe? Is he from like, just slightly north of the Bay Area? But yeah, Brady to San Francisco. Keep Purdy as a backup and then trade, trade Tralance. That could be, that could be quite a twist. But yeah, like Joe's saying, I don't know, I feel like we just haven't gotten a good enough sample size from Tralance, right? Mike's asking, which teams would you say where Brady would be upgraded from their current QB? A lot of teams could use a Tom Brady, Mike Tower. That's the thing, if he enters the free agent, but yeah, Dolphins got in trouble for chasing after Tom Brady. They've openly wanted Tom Brady. New England, that would be an upgrade. Jets would love a Tom Brady. Titans could use a Tom, Colts would love a Tom Brady. Texans would love a Tom Brady. Raiders could use a Tom Brady. Commanders could use a Tom Brady.  What about the Cardinals? Kyler Murray will be out for at least three cores of the season. Sine Toss, I end up Tom Brady for a season. New coach in Arizona, Sine Tom Brady for a year while Kyler Murray gets- Is Brady the Cardinals? Why not? The D-Hawk, the Hollywood. Yeah. New coach wants to come in with a splash. Kingsbury's done. Kyler Murray's out for a year. Kyler Murray can learn behind, imagine Kyler Murray- Kyler Murray learning behind Tom Brady. Cause he's recovering from his ACL. He'll be out for like half the season, three cores of the season anyway. You know what? Let Tom Brady, you know. Let Tom Brady coach at QB. Yeah, QB coach. That would be fine. Oh, you think Kyler Murray, until Christian says Kyler Murray would throw a fit? You probably would. I think he gets to play more Call of Duty. Plays more Call of Duty? I'm sure Tom Brady's son that kisses on the lips. Yeah, that's a little kisser. Yeah, would love to play Call of Duty with Kyler, yeah. I don't know. Do you think Panthers are really sticking with Matt Corral and Sam Darnold? I think Panthers are- I don't think Panthers are a lot of shake for a season at least, right? You think so? You can't force it. Unless they have a chance to get Brady, they're not doing that. If they get a chance to get Brady, they'll be like, but I don't think Brady would go to- Cryptochem is imagining if Brady goes back to New England. People have talked about that. That'd be very funny. One last season with Belly, for a call on it. Man, Denver, but Denver's got so much money sunk into Russell Wilson and draft capital sunk into Russell Wilson. I mean, they're almost stuck with Russell Wilson for- I think Seattle's a possible landing spot for Tom Brady. Do you think so? Do you think that cap taught a locket? Lots of draft. You gotta run it back in Kenneth Walker now. I don't know. I feel like Geno's earned a year or two. But if you have a chance at Tom Brady, you gotta go for it. Yeah, that's for you. Brady doesn't want to go to the Panthers. I don't think he wants to go to the Panthers. Geno would be fun and- You think Brady goes- What about Seattle? Chris Jaspy talking Brady to Seattle? Just throw Geno Smith to the curb. Geno sounds like, you know, Titans roll on from Tana Hill. Geno goes to the Titans. Okay. Pretty fun. What's Geno's contract? No, Geno's on a one-year deal, right? So he's a free agent. Yeah, and he's earned himself a few years on the contract. That sounds like a- Geno Smith sounds like a Carolina Panthers signing right there. Panthers are Ravens for Geno, I think. No, Ravens are gonna franchise tag Lamar. And then- I don't know about that. Or they're just gonna pay him. I think they're just gonna pay him. I don't think they're gonna pay him. You don't think they're gonna pay Lamar, Jackson? You think they just let him walk? I think they're dumb. And they will let him walk. I think they franchise tag him, and then I think they try to get a trade out of him. It's not gonna work money-wise, but I would love Lamar. That's just make the NFC beast just a real legit thing for a few years. That'd be pretty fun. Give Terry McCormick an actual QB. Like, come on. But I think Geno Smith resigns with, I think Geno Smith resigns with Seattle, though. I do think so, too. If they franchise tag Lamar, though, Oliver, I don't think Lamar Jackson would be happy with it. There's speculation, well, there's speculation that if he had a long-term deal, that he might've played that playoff game. There's some rumblings about that. I don't know about that. I don't know. There's been some rumblings. That's a lot of, I would say border-winding on slander. There's been some rumbling. People trying to read tea, trying to read tea leaves. D.O. bringing up a very good point. Well, Miami got in trouble. They lost draft picks because they were chasing after Tom Brady the first time. You gotta think that Tua has a legit chance of me calling him. I think Tua wants to come back and play. Really shouldn't. I think he's gonna come back and play. But Tom Brady throwing two, yeah, Tyree Kill and Jalen Waddle. Nah, Crypto. Yeah, I think Oliver's right. I think Gronkowski's having fun doing USAA commercials. He loves doing those commercials. You can tell. I think there has to be, there has to be- Why did he do that one New Year's Eve show? That was so close. I think USAA's goal for Gronk, the long-term advertising goal, has to be him enlisting in the army to end up getting USAA insurance. That'd be the thing. You think that's the long-term advertising game. That would be a 2024 Super Bowl commercial. Gronk enlisting for the army so he can finally get USAA insurance. I think that's the long-term advertising goal. I mean, how, that would be a monster commercial. Not this year's Super Bowl, but spend 2023 building up to it. 2024, Gronk says, I'm joining the army. And he does- He could do the thing like Brady did. He'll do two weeks. He'll do boot camp. He'll do the thing. It'll be a PR thing for the army. And he'll get USAA insurance. And he'll be Private Gronkowski. Private Gronkowski. How far have you never thought of this? And that's the long play. That's the story. Every commercial, he's like, gosh, I wish I had insurance. Like, oh no, it's for only active and retired military personnel. And he's like, oh gee, I'm not that. You tickled me, so. That's what I think.  Especially while Gronk, Gronk still looks like he's in good shape, especially while he's in decent shape. Can you imagine you- US Army would love that recruitment. That's a great recruiting commercial. You're like someone on some kind of enemy, the enemy forces and you see Gronkowski run edge with like a- Gronkowski, well yeah. With a rifle, you know, yeah, helmet, vest. He just, Gronk does have that haircut. Gronk's got the haircut. I think that's the plan. I think that's the plan. He's had the mad dogs, the little sunglasses for half. And then, and then USAA just films Gronkowski going through boot camp, like a reality show, Gronk at boot camp. That'd be so great.  Just one season, Gronk boot camp, brought to you by USAA, they sponsored the show. Bravo does the reality show. Boom. So I think it'd be great. No one, no one tell USAA about this idea. We're gonna split do it. If they're up, they're gonna do it. No, you don't. I thought that was USAA's whole thing. That you have to be like enlisted in the military to get their insurance.  Or it's like family of people who have served. No, Big Ben's not coming back. I know, he's not gonna, but you gotta think, they're in that stretch where they went like, you know what I'm saying? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, he might want to, but I don't think I- I mean, it's like on a few more places. Yeah, he's like, I've got some bullets in this arm, I can- He grew to love Kenny, which I love. Every week you could tell like, you know, he had an okay game. And then by the end of the season, he's like, oh yeah, he's like a starting QB at this week. He's got the point. He's like, you can tell, he was slowly warming up to Kenneth. Rodgers is a different question, right? Just because you think so? I think Brady to the right is actually a long shot. I thought the point was always Rodgers. He's younger, but he's time for a little bit longer. Yeah, that makes more sense. But you have to trade for him though, right? Isn't Aaron Rodgers still under contract? He's in the two-year deal this last off season, yeah? Rodgers signed a three-year deal in 2022. Hey, hey. So he's still got two more years, but he's got like some sort of weird out or something like that. I don't know what all these details are. He owns them. So I don't know how all these opt-outs work. Lambo, Warrior, Aaron Rodgers, that'd be a great character. But I guess his option has to be exercised between March 17th and week one, or that guarantee, that's the lead calendar date, right, in March 17th? So when the lead calendar turns over, so like before then, if they release him, they don't have him fully guaranteed and their cap hit would be a lot less or something crazy like that. For the musical chairs, the first person that gets eliminated has to join the USFL. Someone in the IG chat said today, oh, Sam Darnold Ford, future USFL MVP. Devonte Adams? No, he signed a big deal with the Raiders. He's not a free agent. He's on like, essentially, like the football version of like a Super Max. Yeah, yeah. It's the biggest contract for a wide receiver ever, yeah? I think so. All right, it looks like we're a little bit past the top of the hour. Raymond, the only one putting in an order for that four box hip parade mixer. Where's our wrapping things up here again? I'm gonna, I got one more thing atop us today. I think I'm gonna do guys, yeah. Nice, all right. All right, all right, all right. Well, join us tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen. Three o'clock Pacific, six o'clock Eastern. We'll do more football talk. We'll be breaking more football. We'll be doing some more pre-orders. We're just, I mean, as you can tell by the site, we're preparing for a big new release Wednesday. And I think finest baseball drops on Friday. So look out for pre-orders there as well. It's gonna be a busy new release week. It's gonna be great. And I think Rodgers, I'm not sure if what releasing them, I'm sure Packers wanna trade them. So who knows? Yeah, that immaculate basketball. Hopefully get some more momentum on those pre-orders, Daniel. All right, I'll see you then. Joe Christian, thank you very much. Have a great night. Stephen Punk, if Jerry Jones, he'll do a backflip. Jerry Jones might injure himself. So he might paralyze himself if he does a backflip. Stephen, I'll talk to you later, man. See you tomorrow. Oliver, I'll see you tomorrow. Mike Tower, have a great night. Cryptochemist, thanks for hanging out as well. We'll see you tomorrow. Who else is around? And anyone else kind of listening, lurking in the background? Where's Rex? Maybe Rex usually working and listening in the background. Rex, have a great night if you're listening. I'll see everybody tomorrow, three o'clock Pacific, six o'clock Eastern. Get your pre-orders going, get some spots for tomorrow's breaks going. Let's do another NT break tomorrow as well. So we can have a lot of things we can do tomorrow and a lot of pre-orders we can accomplish as well. We'll go through all the products, we'll talk about the new releases tomorrow as well. We'll talk football, we'll see what plays I'm gonna make for the divisional rounds, which should be really exciting. So, what do we choose today tomorrow? Maybe TNT basketball tomorrow? There'll be things to do. Thanks everybody. Have a great night. There's Rex, high and bye Rex. Have a great night. See you everybody. See you tomorrow.


To snack or not to snack? A review was recently published on the accumulated research about eating frequency in both weight and health. Maybe we should eat throughout the day to reduce hunger, increase our metabolic rate, mobilize our body fat, or maybe snacking will just lead us to overeat. What does the science say? What do you think? A few big meals a day or smaller, more frequent meals throughout the day for weight management and optimal health? According to the best available science, it doesn't seem to matter. Overall current evidence does not suggest that manipulating the eating frequency greatly benefits weight and health.  If you do like snacking, though, a new study, thanks to the California prune board, suggests that, what else? Prunes may be a particularly good choice, given the satiating power of prunes, which they found, like with nuts, to compensate for the majority of their calories.


Now, how's it guys? The most important book in the history of photography. It is John Mayovitz's Seeing Things, a kid's guide to looking at photographs. It shows them the important things in photography and by looking at these important things, we can get inspired as well. You know, you look through this book and it is a gold mine, a fantastic imagery. You know, look at this, this is a wonderful picture. You know, this is a photographer called Sally Gao and here he's talking about light and happiness. What wonderful themes. How can you find a tutorial that's gonna teach you about light and happiness? You know, he says here, and this is what I love also about this book, that is broken down in a lovely conversational sort of way. The John Mayovitz says, people are asking me all the time, how do I know what to take a picture of? And our answer, whatever it is that makes you stop, photograph that, he then goes on to explain. With this photograph, Sally Gao shows us how surprising and sculptural laundry can be. Does that not encourage somebody to pick up a camera, to go out and to just photograph the things? It is so refreshing to see ideas in photography broken down into simple, easy to digest and understand statements. They are suggestions. There's nothing in here that says you must do this or you must do that. And, you know, this is not technical talk. This is not talking about how you do this and exposures and all this kind of stuff. None of those things exist in this book. It's more about the pure joy of looking at it. You know, here's some Marianna Mark, you know, the man, you know, the elephant around his neck and it's the same sort of idea again. You know, he's talking about the right moment.  It's two pages. It's two pages telling you, telling a child what they need to know.  Joel Myvitz goes on to say, you know, when I first saw the picture, I was excited by the physical presence of the elephant in the ways every trunk looped around the trainer's neck. But then he goes on to say that, you know, Marianna Mark was quick to notice the little details, give the picture the, it's grace. And this is where the benefit of learning to actually absorb a photograph comes in. You know, he's talking about the belt, the trainer's hands, the bracelets, also perfectly positioned that they follow the curve, the belt, which echoes the loop of the trunk. Now, these are all the tiny things that when you're looking to improve your photography are so vital to elevating a little bit, to be aware of these kind of things. So when you go back to basics with a book like this that is written by a man who has an enthusiastic and infectious passion for photography and a knowledge to pass on, it only can help you better. You know, our old friend, William Eggleston, always gets to surface around here on the channel, doesn't he? But here, always using as an example is to say, look as familiar as a bottle of soda is, here it is, presented as a luminous, floating double image of itself. And then going on to say that the fact that Eggleston stopped to photograph this surprising moment of beauty reminds us to look more carefully to remember the most banal objects, most commonplace afternoons contain unexpected mystery and wonder.  There was, you know, the example earlier with the billowing, you know, the laundry, that's a new photographer. Here we have, you know, this lovely dramatic image, which I'm sure many of you have seen before, I'm gonna peek around the side here like that, of, you know, Paul Strand. Talking about eye contact and how important it is in an image, I love this, you know, taking a simple contact, contact, I'm getting tripped off by the book here, taking a simple concept and explaining it in a way that the kids go, okay, love it, get it. We don't need to talk about the background here. We don't need to talk about, you know, where this was taken and everything was going on and the zone system and the user lens and stuff. We wanna talk about the eye contact, why the eye contact makes this photograph so powerful. So then hopefully the next time somebody goes off, a child, you, and you're taking pictures of people that you go, aha, I remember that simple concept and I'm gonna put it into practice to give my images more connection, more personality, more depth. So many people, I think go through life, they are given a camera, they're given the opportunity to take photographs and there is a lack of information that goes beyond the technical and that's what makes me sad. I don't like the fact. The basics of seeing are not being passed on to people.  And a book like this, the seeing things, John Mayovitz in this, and it is a slim volume, it's not a huge book, right? Has wrapped up in an easy to digest, wonderful way of looking. Everything that I get excited about photography that I want to share with my little boy, we share with you to say, look, these are photographs that, often people will show them. Say, look at this photograph, isn't this proper, well-meaning photograph or something, like all the art classes that we had at school where people were just like, oh, well, you just, this is important because I say so. If we also take the time to give the photographers of the future a roadmap that says this is how you speak with this medium. This is the things you can do. Now take those ideas and run with them. And there's this picture of Lee Friedlander with the shadow, he looks like he's got some sort of crazy hair sort of thing going on there, which I love. Also, that's a really good point. A lot of these photographs are not heavy. They're not meaningful. They are photographs that once, like the text, have a simple purpose. There's not too much in them. They're amusing, they're fun. The kids are gonna love looking at them. Is this your shadow? Seems to just tag along. But you animate it, you are its director. And Joel goes on to talk about, you know, Friedlander was always on the lookout for new ways to see what trouble his shadow can get into and how much fun he can have watching it. If this channel can do half as much, even a quarter, a fraction, of instilling inspiration into photographers, but new and old, new and experienced, young and old, then we will have done our job, that we will have helped to inspire people, to not let these ideas disappear. These, the people who are sharing these things, you know, Joel is not a young man. Sorry, Joel, right? And there is a window that is closing of knowledgeable people who are willing to share their experiences, their knowledge, their passion, their enthusiasm with the younger generation, in a way that is accessible. As I've been talking, I've got Alborado, so again, me with the names, you know, Alborado Morel, and I'm sure if I mispronounced that, but this is, look at these lovely beams of light. I'll put the picture up on screen because this light, this light is killing that light. You know, somebody's talking about seeing the light, that light is elemental and is everywhere, it's sunlight, moonlight, starlight, firelight, streetlight, candlelight, even as lasers and neon. All right, and in, he talks about, you know, to see the light is to understand something more clearly or in a new way. As Alborado Morel's photograph of light is feeling beams falling in a polka-dotted pattern on the floor, it's encouraging thought in photography. I have not been as inspired to take a photograph or to try something new, to go out and, you know, see what I can find as I have been by this book. This book, and this is actually the second copy that I have of it, I don't have actually to go, this second copy I've bought, I gave another one to a friend of mine's son, you know, in the hope, I think the most powerful introduction to this art form that is at once both technical and aesthetic, you know, and we need to spend more time cherishing, encouraging and promoting the aesthetic, because when we do that, our work improves. We can make not more meaningful work, but work that resonates with people and we can help to give the people coming behind us a guide that says, you know, there is more to making images than just crazy processing or whatever it is you wanna do. Make things with substance too. If you'd like to find out more about Joel Maivitz's actual photography, and it is lovely, I think it's wonderful, check out this video over here. Thank you ever so much for watching and I will see you again soon.


Hi everyone, Joe for jazby's case rakes.com quick random number block randomizer for all of those teams right there for pick your team 10 which is coming from a fresh case So works just like our standard number blocks big thanks to Zach and Chris for getting into this one. They're the numbers right there Let's roll it. Let's randomize it Six the hard way and six after six we got Chris down to Chris six times and Six after six times we got zero down to six All right, three and a three that's six right there six right there Let's pop the numbers in right here. So Chris you have all the numbers except for two There you go, and I don't have to do my little redemption disclaimer because Chris has both zero and one All right, the break itself will be in a separate video. So if you're looking for that check that out jazby's case rakes.com. Bye. Bye