Hi everybody. Thanks Kevin. I'm Andrew. And this is my talk, Perspective in 3D. You guys must be really, really bored of financial stuff to show up at this talk. I appreciate it. A little bit about myself. Who am I? Like I said, I'm Andrew. I'm a contributor to Phinos' Perspective project. And I used to work at JPMorgan when we developed it as open source JPMorgan. And recently I've left and founded a company to attempt to commercialize technology called the Pro Perspective Company. Pause for applause? No. More importantly, 2021 Hogs for the Cause BBQ Grand Champion. Team Lardon Charge. Which, you know, has really nothing to do with this talk. Oh, how'd that get there? Weird. That's me. Grand champions. So let me ask a question. Most powerful programming language ever created. Just kidding. Got you. No. This, obviously. Everybody knows that, right? And this is something that's always really fascinating with me. Like, y'all are financial engineers, I'm assuming, or financial engineering related. Quick show of hands. How many people have worked on a project at a bank or a financial firm where the goal was to replace this with a web application? I was expecting more. But let's pretend like everybody raised their hands just to make my talk go later. How many of those products succeeded? Yeah. Okay. Why? It's because this is actually really complicated, right? It looks like a grid, and it is. But there's an enormous amount of complexity and power embedded in this application. And, you know, what, 30 plus years of engineering, hundreds or thousands of engineers have worked on this thing since when I was in high school or even earlier. Or like the original DNA of applications like this predates Excel by decades. And yet this application paradigm exists. And you know, I'm not decrying or in any way condemning like the pursuit of trying to replace these applications, but like we are in some sort of weird vicious cycle with financial application development where we hate this thing and we're constantly trying to place it, but we're also recoding it over and over again. And we're never actually kicking it off the desktop. And, you know, I don't particularly care about that from like a bank point of view necessarily, but as a programmer it really fascinates me. What is the appeal of this thing? What is that intrinsic power? Why does this really simple paradigm match up so well with computability and provide this really easy on-ramp for like non-technical people or non-programming people to really grasp and express computability like in a way that makes me as a programmer kind of plush? And I'll tell you, one of the most impressive, like when you see this and you see a grid in a financial application in a web page or something like that, that somebody kind of hand rolled, you know, you can look at the pixels and you can say there's numbers, there's colors, there's whatever, you can kind of get some sort of insight on what it does. But the thing that has always really struck me about Excel as a platform is stuff like this. So this is from a website called spreadsheetgaming.com. It is a 18-hole golf simulator with actual real-life courses. I believe they have three or four PGA tours also coded in there. And I'm sure this guy has been coding this. I'm assuming it's a guy. Sorry, I didn't mean to gender that comment. But I mean, this is just an enormous amount of work. And like for me as an engineer, when I see something like this, you know, like, I don't need to have a feature list in Excel to look at something like this and see where the boundaries are in terms of the power of the underlying programming paradigm. I know what I would do as an engineer if I wanted to code something like this, if I wanted to build an application with this amount of state, this amount of interactivity, this complexity of rendering. And without knowing anything about what Excel can do as a platform, I can look at this as an engineer and make a snap decision about what its boundaries are. Like it fills in my imagination immediately of knowing what the capabilities of the platform are. And that to me is like marketing magic.  I didn't have to write a prospectus. I didn't have to do a white paper or anything. This picture told me everything I needed to know about what the capabilities of the software were. And then I love this thing. I don't know if you've seen anything like this before, but this is an entire ray tracing engine written in Excel, which is just amazing. Now it's the performance is terrible, but that's not the point. The point is that such a complex model can be done in such a simplistic language that I don't expect people to understand the geometry of how something like this works necessarily for not familiar with mathematics, but just the fact that this is possible in this paradigm is just incredibly impressive to me. So when we wrote perspective for JPMorgan, our job was to make, I'm not going to go too much into why we bid it or what the background of it was, but the general point was to try to use bleeding edge technology to build desktop caliber user experiences in the browser, to take the technology that our firm at the time, JPMorgan, had been developing for decades to supercharge the physical machines that were sitting under Trader's desk and transition that whole business to the web and do so in a way where we could reuse a lot of the infrastructure and research and technology that I already put into this. And when I saw this, I knew exactly what I had to do for the next Fenos talk that I did in 2035, because we're not quite there yet. This is just like the first step in this is going to be 14 more talks over the next, you know, decade and a half. And then in 2035, we'll be playing a crisis on this machine embedded in perspective. So let me tell you a little bit about how this works. So Excel is like a lot of hand waving here. It's analogous to like assembly language. Those cells are basically memory cells. It's linear memory and you can make operations that cite various places the same way that like a pointer would work in a regular language and you could write expressions on them. It's really powerful. It is a complex computation model and it has performance implications. And in finance, we have certain shapes of data, highly structured data, highly tabular data and data that moves in real time. And when we open source perspective or we design perspective, the goal is to try to take that spreadsheet like interactive experience and that flexibility and power to kind of like start with your data and build out the kind of visualization you wanted on top of it without the integration of engineer. We were working under different constraints than a traditional spreadsheet. Specifically, perspective is a columnar data source. It's a lot more similar to something like access if you're familiar with it or traditional relational database. It has monotype columns. You can't put a string underneath a number. You can't really kind of put mixed data sets and build kind of, let me put it this way. You can't build golf in perspective yet. It is SQLite in some ways. It has a lot of kind of that same familiar relational algebra queries that you might be familiar with from SQL. And it's got some kind of OLEP like queries. It was never really designed to fit a specific paper in terms of like its implementation of a relational system. So it kind of picks and chooses little features from various types of database technologies in order to provide the user experience that we wanted. And specifically, it's specialized for real time or streaming data, which is something we had to deal with quite a lot. We really wanted this to be a platform that could scale with the kind of data sets that we had in our trading business, giant data sets that updated multiple times a second. And it's not that you can, as a trader, as a quant or something like that, consume that information to make decisions about it, but that you can issue queries against it and know that what you see as a result of these queries are up to the seconds when they're evaluated. After we open source, I think one of the really cool things about open sourcing is like once we've thrown the code over the wall and into the jungle, we didn't have the same kind of restrictions about how we could integrate and what other free stuff we could pull off the shelf and stick into our project. So when clients came to us with new needs and new ways that they wanted to extend it, it made it very natural for us to say, well, this stuff's already free, so what's the harm in just gluing it together with every other thing we can possibly find? We ended up kind of extending it with a bunch of things that we really couldn't have done internally, proprietary. For example, this language called Expert-TK, which is an Excel-like language written in C++ designed to be embedded in larger data computation systems to build Excel-like expression functionality into your platform. Guy who worked with my team at the time recommended it, or he knew the developer from a previous life, and we tried it out and it worked really, really well. It is, I refer to it as a stackless and heapless language in the sense that within the language itself, you can't define functions, there's no closures, you can't actually, like, inhabit a stack frame, you can't allocate anything on the heap, you can't do any sort of dynamic allocation whatsoever. When you write an Expert-TK expression, the size of the entire expression is compiled ahead of time, which is really great for a columnar engine, right, because we can take a really complicated expression, compile it ahead of time, know exactly how many bytes it's going to take to calculate each row, and then just blaze through the whole column without ever calling malloc, recalculating every row on the fly. And if, another quick show of hands, how many financial programmers, you see, man, how many other financial programmers in the room came from or once in a previous life wanted to be game programmers? Everybody, right? That was an obvious one, sorry, give me. There's actually a lot of parallels between, like, this and how a game engine works, or how GPU works. GPU is a parallel processor, right, with many, many cores that can do things in parallel, but it's not like, you know, the 12 cores, or whatever, four cores on this machine, it has a single instruction pointer and a lot of other constraints about how parallel those various cores can actually be. But it's really, really good for generating graphics if you're careful about how you program it. So, like, similar to a spreadsheet, this ray tracing is being done by calculating independently for every pixel in the image its color based on a math expression. So let me give you a quick demo just to show you what those things look like in perspective. So this is perspective. This is a really simple Tableau data set that we stole from their user forums. It's got about 10,000 rows on it, and it's just some data that kind of looks good in a pivot table. So there's a standard kind of stuff that you can do, you know, you can sort on columns, great, you can filter on columns. This is pretty standard SQL stuff. OK. But you can also do calculations that involve either expanding things horizontally or vertically. So for example, if I was to do a group by, take some value and group it, this went from 10,000 rows to 50, which means that each one of these physical rows in this query now represents multiple underlying rows in the original data set that I passed into the table. And there was some function that had to be applied in order to take the 42 rows in this table in Louisiana.  It's a little more complicated than just being able to, so like right now, perspective does not allow you to customize operations in this direction vertically. The reason is because it's actually a lot more complicated than just writing an expression, because perspective supports kind of complicated multi-dimensional pivots, and is specifically designed to be real time. The internal functions that calculate these aggregations need to be able to incrementally update their leaves when the underlying data updates. So we haven't gotten to the point yet in the open source software where we have exposed the ability for you to customize these.  But we also have an operation goes in the other direction that way. So Excel, you can go diagonal, you can go upways, sideways, left ways, around ways, all the other Willy Wonka stuff. But in a structured table like perspective, you can go up and down, you can go left and right. It's sort of, you can go kind of parallel to certain rows with some specialized operators, but I'm trying to simplify it. So let me give you an example. I'm just going to take two numeric columns, whatever, sales and profit done by. OK, these are two numeric columns. I'm going to click on button and make a new one. So I'm going to do that. I'm going to say, what did I say? Row ID. Pretty obvious what's going on here, right? Column A plus column B equals column C. Easy, right? And an interesting thing about this, if you remember from three minutes ago when I was talking about GPUs, these are all independently calculated. They're not done in parallel like they are in a GPU, but they're quite fast. And if you squint and ignore the parallelism part, it's operating a lot like a render. Now, sidebar. When we open source perspective, it was popular. A lot of people liked it. I think I fried a lot of value. But I think the best decision we ever made was when the bank came to us looking for an open source software project to kind of bring to market, I think they kind of looked at the engagement with the open source communities like we're going to take our dead code and we're going to throw it out in the community and hopefully somebody's going to pick it up and give us a bunch of free code back and we won't have to maintain it anymore. That's not how open source works. Open source is a plant or a pet. You've got to feed it. You've got to grow it. You've got to take care of it. You've got to maintain it. You've got to encourage it. It requires active work to own that thing. And we've been working on this for half a decade or more. And that was on top of the 10 plus years of development that happened privately before I was even involved in the project. When we open sourced it, it was popular. But what really happened over those intermediate five years was kind of working with the community, learning how they were using it, building new features on top of it, and engaging with the community to do that thing that I showed you earlier with the golf example, show people with their imaginations how they can use the technology to solve their problems without giving them a laundry list of features and a button that says contact or sales person so they can try to convince you to buy it. Over the years, the thing that I found absolutely by far the most effective thing in terms of like, and this doesn't just apply to open source because our open source strategy was also how we got the technology adopted within the bank and how we convinced traders and quants and analysts in a massively diverse organization to use our software to solve their problems in a way that I never had the access to do when I was developing proprietary software as a manager. The thing that really impacted that reach was the examples that we published. If you go to the, if you have ever been to the perspective website, not this one, that one.  It does not care about NFTs whatsoever. It doesn't give a flying flip about all the bad things the NYPD has done over the years. None of this stuff has any relevance to banking. But all of these data examples are things that we did because we thought they were fun and because the data was free. And it was an ability for me to communicate to other bankers in an environment where, sorry, not other bankers, other financial programmers, that in an environment where I didn't have access to the kind of data that they were actually using on their desktop, what the power of the technology could do with data that was freely available that we could publish. There was actually an FTX example on here, but then they turned into a criminal enterprise and we took that down. Anyway, so this one specifically, the fractal example, is a really close analogy to what we're doing today. And actually, I should probably just show you this version because it's better. So this is a popular fractal, and I think you guys are probably familiar with called Mandelbrot Set. It looks like that. And okay, so what this is, is a, this is a expertise expression. And if you look at the actual underlying table, it looks like this. This is what the actual data is. It is 40,000 rows of the numbers, zero through 39,999. That's what the data is. You can see that if I refresh this to go back to the original setting. I have on the group by access the calculation, this one column index. I have this calculation index divided by 200. And on the y-axis, I have index mod 200, which is the, I'm basically just iterating through this linear data set, right? And just drawing things like a television one, left to right. In fact, if I go down here and I switch this column to plot index instead of color, you can see that, right? So this is the color range of values over here, right? And if I move the cursor over here, you can say that this is index one, and this is index 40,000, 39,999 behind me down here. And this guy is the Mandelbrot escape function. So that's a bug. Pay no attention to that. It is a really simple function that I stole from Wikipedia. Looks exactly like the Wikipedia version. I have no idea what this means. I haven't been to a math class in 25 years. All the mathematicians in the audience just told it, please. But basically what this is doing is it iterates, for every cell on the page, this is the complex plane, and it iterates through this escape function to see whether or not the function diverges. And you set up like, do it, I think this one's set to, how many iterations is set to? This is set to 100 iterations. So for every cell on this page is iterating 100 times and recalculating this convergence function and deciding how many iterations of that cell it takes to converge and plotting a color based on top of it. That sounds a lot like a GPU, right? So let's get back to the GPU part of this. Okay, so here's our task. This is what we're gonna be doing. This is a ray caster, a basic model of what a ray caster looks like, or it's a ray tracer. I'm not actually sure. Ray caster, ray tracer. Ray tracer, ray tracer, yes, perfect. Ray tracer, I was right the first time. So the way this works is there's a camera or a point in space where the camera is, and there's a plane, the image plane, and this is called the frustrum? Frustrum. Frustrum. Frustrum. And for every pixel on this, so this screen is my screen, right? This is where we're gonna render the image. And for every pixel that we wanna render, we're gonna calculate the color, independently from other pixels. And the way it works is we're gonna have a scene. The scene is gonna be some geometric objects that are defined in vectors, and we are going to iterate through all of them for every ray on the screen and calculate their intersections. We're then gonna sort them by depth, how far away they are from the camera, pick the closest one, and that's the color we're gonna plot on the screen. Sound simple? It was pretty simple, actually. Now this does like a lot more than what Perspective does, which is not super a lot. The, I also stole this algorithm from Wikipedia. So please don't ask me to totally explain it. And the key here is calculating the intersection between a vector and a triangle. So a really useful way to do that is this transformation, which allows you to map the coordinates of the vector points that define a triangle into very centric coordinates, which allows you to very cheaply determine whether or not a point or an intersection on the plane in which that triangle lies is within or outside of the triangle on various plane orientations. Specifically, it compounds those nine coordinates, those three vectors that determine the triangle in three dimensional space, into two coordinates, U and V.  So you can calculate this intersection really easily by basically saying, given a origin point, it was gonna be our camera, a directional vector, the ray that we're casting into the pixel space and that, and the triangle we wanna intersect with, calculate its UV coordinates on the plane in which the triangle lies. And if those UV coordinates satisfy that equation, they're both greater than zero and added together a little less than one, then it intersects the triangle. And if not, it doesn't. And to show you what that looks like, I'm gonna do a little bit of live coding here because I think this is cool. Bear with me. Let's go up to here. We're gonna take all these guys and comment them out because I don't want you to see them yet. There we go. And I'm gonna go back over to this. How much time do I got? Five minutes, I can do this. Oops, that's too many. That was the big reveal, sorry. Okay, so this is a little tiny triangle. You can barely see it, it's real far away. But if I were to go down here in this code and replace all of this stuff with just, whoop, I screwed that up. Well, it's close though. So what you would have seen had I not screwed that up was you would see a nice little kind of rainbow color like this basically showing these values from zero to 30. How did that happen?  Nevermind, sorry guys. I really should have practiced this a little more, guys. Where did I turn that back to? That guy, that guy, that guy. Okay. Actually, you don't want to just undo this. Yeah, let's just skip that part. So. Anyway, so you saw this in the previous fractal example, right? We're just taking this one, the exact same data set that you saw in fractals, right? Zero to 39,000. And we're calculating the X and Y coordinates. And we're making up this value that is the, that's a typo, don't worry about that. We're picking a point that's gonna be the camera point exactly out of the Wikipedia article. We're then dropping in this giant vector, which is a little bit cheating, but this is a cube that I stole from Google. It's just the individual coordinates of the vector spaces that form up cube. 12 triangles, six faces on the cube, two triangles for face. And it's oriented around the origin 200 pixels per each side. That means that there are nine coordinates per face. So we're gonna iterate through that large vector in blocks of nine. We're gonna parse out the three individual vectors that form the corners of the triangle. And then we're gonna calculate those two coordinates by stealing the code directly from Wikipedia. This is literally like line for line exactly how the Wikipedia article about how the Thrunbor-Muller intersection algorithm is actually calculated. And you can see the exact parameter U that we talked about earlier and the exact parameter V that we talked about earlier that don't add up to one for some reason when I change the expression, but I'll figure that out later. And then we, once we found those coordinates and we validated that they were within the range, we assume and we know that we have an intersection. We calculate the depth by just taking the diff between the vector that points to the intersection point and the camera, calculating its magnitude. And as we're iterating through each of those triangles in the dataset, we just say is the depth that we calculate for this intersection closer to the camera than the previous one? And if it is, we set the color to be whatever that intersection is. And if not, we assume that it has been occluded by something else in the past or something else that we've already calculated. And what we end up with is something that looks like this.  I just took that one really cube and just iterated it over a bunch of times at random. This is two and a half billion intersections being calculated in perspective. So it's the same, you know, 200 by 200 with the 12 triangles and 100 blocks. And it takes 15 or so seconds to render. Let's see if it makes me a liar. Come on, my man. I know you can do this. Yeah, there we go. Close. A lot of them are on this side of the camera because I'm bad at math. But yeah, look, this is not a talk for y'all to take this information home and build 3D charts for your financial clients, obviously. But I hope this gives you a little bit of an intuition about what the power of the underlying engine is and how you can use it to solve your own problems rather than having to go to an engineer to do those things. And I don't really have anything else. Any questions? Yeah, so I'll put the code on GitHub. Yeah, so ignore everything I just said. I'm gonna put the code on GitHub. Please download it and use it in financial applications to make financial visualizations for your companies. I'm sorry? How to do clients. Yeah, we're still working on the LOD parser, but you forgot this joke. So we're gonna start with doom and then we're going to crisis. 2035 is when you can expect that, although we're pretty good, so we might be able to do 2034. Yeah, thanks for coming to my talk.


What's going on guys and gals? Brad here for late and sports cards. We're repping 2021 prism football team all addition 10 box number two random teams Here is your list one more time Feel free to check it out on the website at any time and thank you for joining. Good luck guys Nice Bradley. You know what they say us Bradley's have to stick together Pretty sure they say that Silver rookie Noah Gray to 39 Tyus Bowser to 39 Lazar Matt Ryan Elijah Mitchell Shray Lance Anthony. He was a god Silver Elijah Molden 39 Brett Farr 12 at 39 On YouTube Girl jam and house and change together on YouTube mad season show is like a war to war craft Silver Justin Fields nice To 39 Randy Moss Vikings Trey sermon Jalen camp Silver Jeremiah a wussu Kormoa to 39 leviska chanel jr. Najee Harris rookie It's so good Dez Fitzpatrick rookie silver and a tj. Who's been zata to 39 Fingles maybe that's it silver Javan Holland nice man to 39 back Prescott 31 of 39 Anthony. Do you hear the story behind that? How messed up he was Remandre a who's a reek a Silver rookie Shane Buchel To 39 Daniel Jones Giants that's a nice card bar more. Yeah, man. So strange. So sad Silver rookie Caleb Farley Titans to 39 Jimmy Garoppolo Niko Collins Racy McMath Silver rookie To 39 Leonard Floyd Jimmy Collins Place and Campbell G2 full Silver Javante Williams rookie to 39 AJ Dillon Green Bay on the back and that'll do it guys Thank you so so much for filling these up We have NT coming up in just a bit


When Zoe Saldana isn't in space, you might find the Guardians of the Galaxy star relaxing in Beverly Hills with her husband Marco Perego and their three sons. It was important for her to create a comfortable space at home that was inspiring for her and her family. Her current residence is a gorgeous colonial revival estate in the star-studded, gated neighborhood of Hidden Valley where apparently no room is off limits to her boys, and they also spend a ton of time gardening. We'll take a look at this multi-million dollar home as well as Zoe's previous bachelorette Pat in Los Feliz. We even found some of the listings. Zoe Saldana is an American actress who after performances with the theater group Faces appeared in a 1999 episode of Law and Order. Her film career began a year later with the movie Center Stage when she portrayed a ballet dancer. Zoe worked mostly in sci-fi films beginning in 2009 with her first of multiple appearances in the Star Trek film series and then landed a starring role in Avatar. She also portrays Gamora in the Marvel world My Personal Faith beginning with Guardians of the Galaxy in 2012. Due to her appearances in some of the highest grossing films ever such as Avatar and Avengers Endgame, Zoe is the second highest grossing film actress of all time as of 2019 if you could believe it. Her films grossed more than 11 billion worldwide. In 2013 Zoe began dating Italian artist Marco Perego who would become her husband later that year. They have three sons, twins born in 2014 and the third born in 2017. At the time of this recording it's estimated that Zoe has accumulated a net worth of about $35 million. Hey guys and girls it's Kara and today we're bringing you another house tour here on Famous Entertainment. We're going to look at movie star Zoe Saldana and where she calls home with her fam. That includes the beautiful residence she bought in Beverly Hills and the house she used to live prior to that. If you like these videos make sure you're subscribed and ring that bell to be notified when we post so you can always be up to date. We've also done house tours on the likes of Howie Berry and Big Sean and we'll link to some at the end. Follow me on Instagram to chat and as usual let me know who's house tour is next in those comments down below. Now let's get into this video. First let's look at Zoe's previous home. Purchased by the actress in October 2006 for just over 1 million, this house is located in the Franklin Hills neighborhood of Los Feliz, Los Angeles. Around the time that Zoe got hitched to Marco she decided to move on from this place and sell it for 1.15 million. According to listing materials Zoe kept this home lovingly maintained and although it was built in 1955 it was updated recently and contemporary in style. Her previous bachelorette pad had a bright open floor plan and span 2800 square feet with 4 beds and 4 baths. Certainly enough space for Zoe. There were hardwood floors throughout and the main living area had a fireplace. The living and dining room as well as the sitting room were surrounded by large windows with views into the hills nearby. An updated kitchen here offers high end appliances as well as a breakfast bar. There were 3 bedrooms upstairs and one on the lower level. The master suite Zoe used to occupy had a large walking closet and ensuite bath with a large soaker tub. There was a separate entryway on the lower floor of the home which was perfect for use as an office, gym or even extra guest suite. The downstairs of her previous home also had a secluded and completely charming indoor outdoor bonus room that connected to the beautiful redwood deck in the backyard. It seems the house was perfect for the private actress but not quite right for starting a family as once she got hitched it was time for an upgrade. In 2016 it would appear that Zoe had found her dream home. Located in the desirable, guard gated community of hidden Valley Beverly Hills, she now resides in a celeb filled and posh pocket of Los Angeles. Her neighbors include the likes of Adele and Jennifer Lawrence. By the way, I think we should do a house tour on Jay Law soon, let me know what you guys think. Even Kamora Lee Simmons once lived in this very house but sold it at a loss back in 2012. Zoe dropped 8.7 million on the place and it's a colonial revival mansion that's traditional, white and even has gorgeous pillars. The home has gotten quite a makeover since Kamora lived here. Also called a tennis court estate by the listing, the house was the result of a newly completed restoration by renowned architect Richard Menon. Zoe's property offers unparalleled privacy, security and a walled front courtyard gives the home elegant curb appeal. Sitting on half an acre of land moving inside, her home spans 6,332 square feet with six beds and eight baths. Walking in, there's a grand two-story entry which is to be expected in any celeb home and the surrounding spaces are sun-filled and roomy. Designed with the entertainer in mind, the first floor of Zoe's home has a huge family room which is part traditional living room and part games room with a pool table. There's also a more formal living room nearby. Elsewhere on the first floor of the home, there's an additional seating area with an office space which compliments the second floor library. A place which is no doubt a focus for family time with Zoe Marco and the kids has got to be the designer kitchen which has a giant white marble center island or Nate Chandelier overhead and a breakfast room. The island is a perfect spot for the start to seat her children or for guests to gather while she and her husband whip up a few things in the large space. There are also multiple restaurant quality refrigerators and appliances which are both stainless steel and with glass doors as well as a giant chef's oven. Upstairs in Zoe's home, you'll find the majority of bedrooms as well as some other special features. The master suite is spacious and serene with dark wood floors, large windows and French doors as well as a cozy fireplace and sitting area. It also has an office nook and the master bath is understated in classic with the best of materials. There's a luxurious large shower, separate bath, a marble flooring and a dual vanity. But maybe even more impressive is the celebrity style walking closets. The Hidden Hearts closets the couple have offer more than enough space for all of Zoe's red carpet duds and Marco's favorite suede Chelsea boots, hats and suits. Zoe's new closet is the size of a giant bedroom if not larger with custom shoe, handbag and even ball gown space as well as a seated dressing area and mirrored vanity. Two additional bedrooms are also upstairs with another suite on the third floor. Two final rooms could be used as a maid's quarters or guest spaces since they have a private entry. These days with Zoe and Marco having three sons, perhaps these days they're utilizing space for a nanny. Zoe's home also has a library, media room and home gym which even has a Pilates reformer machine by the looks of it. Perfect for the fitness loving actress. While inside is perfect for entertaining so is the outdoor area offering a regulation championship tennis court among other amenities. Property as a swimming pool, rose gardens and an outdoor barbecue with fireplace and seating areas. While the lot isn't as big as you might expect, careful design has ensured the space was well utilized and left room for manicured lawns and wraparound gardens with hedges to add more privacy. In a more recent interview with Architectural Digest, Zoe also revealed that her home, although colonial architecture, is designed as Italian 60s modern style inside. She also says they have a family garden she takes pride in where they grow some food. Not to mention, Zoe made sure that her home was designed with three young sons in mind. She explained, I wanted to make sure that in addition to everything being beautiful and affordable and super artistic, I wanted it to be child safe. I have three boys and they're always gonna be jumping, ripping and biting. I also wanted it to be durable. Well, I'm sure their sons appreciate that or at least they'll learn to appreciate the beautiful home when they're older. All right. So I think I'll bring this house tour to an end here. We got to check out where actress Zoe Saldana calls home like her previous bachelorette Pat & Loose Phyllis and her current residence in Beverly Hills. So what did you guys think? You guys can raise Zoe's houses in the comments down below or pick which one of the two you liked better. I love to hear from you guys, so go ahead. I'd probably rate the first house a seven because it was still pretty spacious but was missing a pool. And her second house, well, that's a 9.5 just because. I also recently did a house tour of my place on my personal channel and while I also don't have a pool and I gotta say it's just a little bit smaller, I still love if you guys checked it out. So I'll link you to my latest video and please like and subscribe to my personal channel. This is it, we're all moved in. Clearly it looks like I'm already living here and this apartment didn't actually come with an island, the old kitchen did. So I had to order one but I'm absolutely in love with this one. Thanks for tuning in, don't forget to follow me on Instagram and let me know whose house tour is up next. I'll see you all in the next one, bye.


The United Way of Tarrant County is a fundraising partner for a lot of nonprofits that serve elderly, veterans, youth, and families across Tarrant County. All of the funds that we're raising during the month of April, that's our Fundraising Month for City of Fort Worth Employees, 100% of those dollars go out to the community. So the United Way doesn't retain any funding for themselves, for administrative fees or anything, it all goes to serve residents of Tarrant County. Come on! Get it! Get it! We are so excited to be here at the United Way City of Fort Worth kick-off event. We have hundreds of employees from the City of Fort Worth all doing different booths. We're supporting a great organization in our community and we're learning different hidden talents from workers right here for the City of Fort Worth. It's a great day to be out here raising money for a great cause. Great take! Come on, baby! I think the United Way Fund raises a great opportunity and all the booths out here selling stuff, raising money to help those in need. I think it's a great opportunity for everybody to come out and share and see what's going on throughout the city. So I'm excited about it. Well I came to get the food but they've got one for photos over with IT Finance and they've got one that the ladies over in finance made baked goods. It looks amazing. There's goodies to buy popcorn, throw the pie at the director of my department and so just lots of fun things to do here. I think it's a great opportunity today, a creative way to get people to donate to United Way and have fun and have some camaraderie between the departments and competition. My department's doing a pie throwing contest and so some lucky executives got to volunteer to get pie thrown in their face. So this City of Fort Worth campaign, all the employees can participate in the entire month. They can spend money here, they can, we have an online auction, they can give through payroll deduction and different departments are hosting different events.


What's up guys and welcome to one take I'm Gil and today we're talking about dark season 3 episode 3 titled Adam and Eva There will of course be spoilers in this video through episode 3 But I have not watched beyond that in the final season So no spoilers for any episodes beyond the third one And before we jump into it quick reminder to hit that subscribe button If you haven't done so already and keep up with our coverage on the rest of the season With that let's jump into the episode. We begin in what appears to be the mid 1800s They don't tell us that specifically, but we see the blind townhouse We're familiar with from the previous episodes We see him here as a child with his father his father is reading to him from the play Ariadne Which we of course know from Marta She performs a monologue from that play in the alternate world episode one of this season and Back on our world in season one We also see that townhouse's father is wearing a ring with the trichetra symbol and he has that cane Etched into it is sick moon dust create us est His father goes on to say it was your mother's favorite play and he takes out a pocket wash Which says for Charlotte so this opening scene is a real brain twister when he says it was your mother's favorite play the first place my mind goes is Marta and Because of the Adam and Eve parallels we keep getting I've begun suspecting that we're going to find out Jonas and Marta are sort of the Adam and Eve of this family in a very literal sense I'm beginning to suspect that they will have a child or children From which this entire family tree branch due to time travel shenanigans So when he says it was your mother's favorite play is it possible? He is literally talking about Marta now That's of course strange because it would imply Marta was with townhouse's father But maybe we're not getting the full story here. Maybe somehow townhouse is a product of Jonas and Marta then of course there's the four Charlotte pocket watch which Noah ends up handing down to Elizabeth Somehow through again time travel shenanigans did Marta or Jonas grow up come back to the 1800s birth townhouse and hand down this pocket watch down the generations I don't know if I'm getting it exactly right But I feel like it's something in that ballpark then we jump to 1888 and we see the townhouse that we're familiar with from the previous episodes and from this point forward in the recap I am going to take it basically year by year character by character to try and keep everything straight So the blind townhouse has grown up and he's now in possession of that pocket watch and a copy of the Ariadne play He is visited by the lip scar to trio who tell townhouse that they know He's going into town because he wants to tell the world about the time travelers his father spent his whole life trying to prove the existence of time travel and Now this townhouse sees his father is vindicated because he's met Jonas and he's met these other time travelers The trio cannot allow him to do this. So he takes out his favorite weapon the Garrett wire We've seen him use a few times and it's implied that he kills townhouse Back at the townhouse machine factory where Jonas and company are hanging out Bartosh returns with Marta just after last episode she revealed to Bartosh that Jonas is Adam Bartosh is Understandably upset and he tells that Jonas you lied to us. You have no idea what you're doing Jonas tells Bartosh. This isn't Marta. You have to know. She's just using you Magnus butts in it says whoever she is She may be our only hope to get out of here and then Bartosh corners Jonas and tells him Tell them who really killed Marta Jonas tries to leave the room and just exit this tense conversation But Bartosh follows him and they end up having a fight in the rain Very reminiscent of the fight they had back in season one when Bartosh was annoyed at a teenage Jonas For ditching him the night they were supposed to meet Eric's drug dealer who turned out to be Noah And he was doubly annoyed at Jonas for Jonas kissing Marta when she was still Bartosh's girlfriend Then finally Bartosh says I told you all all along Jonas is to blame for everything. He is Adam. I Love this scene. I thought it was really emotionally charged when Bartosh yells I think three times he is Adam Jonas is Adam I kind of hated seeing Jonas not own up to the facts It reminded me of last season right before the apocalypse hit people were just attacking Jonas Bartosh tells Jonas. This is all your fault and Jonas owns it. He says Yeah, it's all my fault But I need to save you from the apocalypse and I kind of miss that Jonas the one who's just accepted Things are as they are and he's not super defensive But seeing Marta has clearly really messed him up. So I don't think he is exactly himself here Later this older Jonas visits Marta and he says to her you said I was with you in your world Why can't I remember it? Marta says that she doesn't know She also says she didn't write the letter that Jonas is in possession of then Marta asks What is Sikmundas Jonas explains that the older townhouse his father Was trying to create time travel so he could bring his wife back from the dead But Jonas goes on to say Townhouse was convinced time travel could bring you salvation But really all it brings is damnation Marta says she needs to hold on to the hope that somehow She can save her world save all her friends and family Then Marta says I know you don't trust me, but I want to show you that you can So she brings him outside to where she's buried her little spherical time travel device And pulls out a little capsule of cesium Supposedly all the cesium she has left her only way back home and she hands it to Jonas That seems to win over his trust Jonas brings it back to the room that contains the time travel machine prototype Places the cesium in a big bowl activates the machine and the cesium begins to rise We get a glimpse of the god particle before it collapses back into that big bowl Then they suddenly notice Marta during all the commotion has left She goes back to her room and it turns out she was lying that was not the last of her cesium She has quite a bit more left which she's able to use to activate the device And disappear before the others can find her so as has been the case throughout the series It looks like Jonas is again Being manipulated and for a moment I thought maybe Marta is lying to Jonas about him having visited her world Because she could have tracked down where Jonas is right now Through adam who later in the episode we learned she's collaborating with But then I remember in this very episode and in this season Of course, we do see younger Jonas Traveling to Marta's world. So there's an important question here. There are two possibilities one Jonas traveled to Marta's world and then Somehow forgets something happens that causes him to forget And he grows up to be the older Jonas that we see here But the more intriguing possibility the one I talked about in the last episode Is that we are truly seeing a deviation from the timeline And the past is being changed Young Jonas has gone to Marta's world and is no longer the same person as the older Jonas we see here That is what I suspect is going on But I'm sure we'll find out in the few episodes that remain now. Let's fast forward from 1888 to 2019 And switch over from our world to Marta's alternate world We find Jonas still in older Marta's lair And sort of adam's style this older Marta is ruminating about how we're all connected And she tells Jonas we are adam and eve. We are a glitch in the matrix Then she says do you want to know why you're here? And she explains Jonas you are here to save them All of your friends and family in your world and in mine Now at no point have I really trusted what older Marta is telling Jonas I assume that like adam she is manipulating him Well, really like adam and like just about everyone else that seems to guide Jonas I believe that this older Marta is manipulating him and that of course becomes clear later in the episode I also just want to know I love the fact that the matrix has had such a cultural impact That you can watch this German show that has a serious philosophical discussion And the phrase glitch in the matrix does not at all feel out of place And we all understand what they're communicating older Marta continues to ruminate about how Jonas Can never let go of Marta adam tried to sever the invisible tie between them But it appears to be impossible Then Marta reveals that she has the st. Christopher necklace that Jonas is also in possession of And Jonas is getting sick of all this. He just wants to know why he is here Older Marta tells Jonas that if you want your Marta back You have to do a few things. You need to meet up with my younger self And turn young Marta into the person that I am today. Jonas Understandably says I'm sick to death of having to do things But older Marta is able to win him over By pulling on his heartstrings saying ask yourself what you want.  I can get you Marta back I always love Jonas's outbursts anytime he's yelled at adam Anytime he just gets sick and tired of all the nonsense he's dealing with you totally understand his frustration But the magic of it is you completely get his frustration. You understand him being sick of all this You understand him not wanting to listen to a word older marta says But at the same time at least I completely buy into him changing his mind when you invoke Marta because That has been the one Shining light in his life ever since mekel took his own life Jonas's world has been nothing but darkness and misery The one beacon of hope has been his Marta and he got seconds with her on the lake He had a moment with her before adam killed her But he really has not had any time to enjoy the relationship that began to blossom back on the lake in 2019 our world So I totally get his frustration And I also completely buy that he would flip when you invoke his marta then older marta hands Jonas her world's version of those futuristic flashlight orbs on this world They're a little bit more rectangular and I have to wonder if there's anything more to these Futuristic flashlights if there will be some interesting twist relating to them Because at the end of the day it seems like they're really nothing more than just very good flashlights In fact, you don't really need them in the cave. Ulrich was able to navigate to the sickmundus Metal door using nothing but a lighter So it just seems funny that they are the only technological advancement We're aware of that happened beyond the year 2020 But I digress after Jonas leaves older marta The trio pays her a visit and they seem like I said in the last episode to play a role similar to noa Where noa was adam's henchman. This trio appears to report up to older marta They hand her marta's play Ariadne, which they must have taken from townhouse They also give her the pocket watch and the nuclear plant papers along with the master key Which they would have taken from jasmine last episode the middle aged gentleman from the trio the one who seems to do most of the talking Says to marta. You could have told him which path you're sending him down how it will end Older marta replies. He will never stop trying to break this cycle He'll never understand that we must preserve the knot that his marta has to die So all the others can live First it's interesting to see this trio say Something which can be interpreted as sympathetic It seems that the trio is sympathizing with Jonas saying you didn't have to lie to him You could have been upfront with him and it makes me wonder if the trio has some kind of a connection To Jonas it also seems that claudia adam marta All these people who spend their lives decades of their lives Trying to figure out all this time travel stuff in the end It seems like they reached the same conclusion You need to preserve these cycles as they are Older claudia did this adam did this and the marta we see here all three of them seem to run along the line of Whatever events occurred we need to ensure they occur again And anytime they send Jonas on a mission It always turns out that they are truly sending him To ensure events play out as they did originally adam sent Jonas to stop michael conwald suicide But twist no he didn't he sent Jonas to actually Make sure the suicide goes forward and that's very similar to older marta Who sends Jonas on a mission that supposedly will allow him Eventually to prevent his marta's death, but twist actually our world's marta has to die And we're going to preserve the knot. So what is going on here? I don't necessarily think that this world's marta and adam have the same motivations But I do think they've come to a conclusion that younger Jonas and even middle-aged Jonas has not yet reached My suspicion is that the knot this knot is caused by all of their meddling in time travel But I also think that all of the family lines That we see on this show branch from a family tree that only exists because of this time knot So the knot needs to exist in order for all of Jonas's friends and family to exist However, the knot also inevitably leads to the apocalypse. So perhaps older marta Selfishly wants to preserve the knot because that means she gets to preserve her own life She gets to preserve the life of all her friends and family Even though she is accepting that will ultimately lead to the world's end And even though this world isn't great the one that she inhabits at least it exists Because my assumption is that removing this knot Also means that marta and adam disappear. So her motivations here may be incredibly selfish I want to preserve this knot that artificially props up my life But at the cost of the rest of the world Literally ending now you can juxtapose that with what marta says in her monologue from the play ariadne knots can't be unraveled But they can be severed and that's similar to what adam says Not the knot cannot be unraveled, but it can be destroyed And that's where I think the motivations may be differ Perhaps older marta wants to preserve the knot live in this essentially bubble reality And adam wants to destroy the knot Which if i'm right that means adam is potentially being selfless here Destroy the knot that kills jonas. It kills this entire family tree But perhaps that's the only way to stop the apocalypse Anyway enough theorizing next we see jonas walking out of the cave And we'll check back with him a little later By the way before we continue just a quick reminder if you're enjoying this video Please go ahead and hit that like button hit the subscribe button And of course the bell icon so you get notified the next time we do a video and you can keep up with our coverage Of the rest of the season and now we'll stay in 2019 on the alternate world But let's check in with ol rick and charlotte. They're at the police station and ol rick Who i believe is in the role of police chief here on this world He's telling the team about the kids Discovering the body in the bunker. We of course know that it's mad's body ol rick and the others have not yet accepted that Ol rick is listing the items that were found with the child including the 80s clothing the walkman and then the license Which says mads nielsen Now at that point ol rick starts to break down. He can't even get the words out charlotte comes to the rescue and asks good old torben woeller to take over from there I love this scene. I love how you don't see ol rick's face at first While he's listing out the items and then when the camera pans over and you see his face You can tell that he's destroyed. You can see he's on the verge of a total breakdown because of course This is bringing back all the emotions from 1986 from his brother disappearing. It's such an emotional scene And as always the acting on this show is just incredible ol rick and charlotte meet in the evidence room And ol rick's thinking right now is that someone has kept mad's belongings for three decades Killed another boy and then planted these belongings on that unidentified boy Then ol rick goes into a version of the monologue that we saw back in season one The monologue where he talks about why he became a cop back in 1986 the investigation into his brother's disappearance They made every possible mistake.  He's of course talking about egon there And ol rick vowed to become a cop and to be a better cop one that doesn't make all those mistakes But look who he is now ol rick says his marriage is ruined And he's cheating on the woman who he cheated on his wife with At that moment he decides he needs to end things with charlotte charlotte as always doesn't really react She probably has the best poker face of any of these characters a few thoughts on this scene one I wonder if we'll get to see the egon teedaman of this world I kind of love and hate the way that ol rick always writes him off as a drunken moron It was easy to bind to that characterization back in season one But they've done such a great job of filling out the egon character They did a lot last season to show us more of his backstory and you realize how good a person he is And he just got in over his head I wonder if maybe he gets a slightly happier ending in this world, but I doubt it It's also interesting how we're watching events Play out on this world that are nearly identical to ones we've seen in our world You would think it would get boring. For example, we're seeing ol rick give Essentially the same monologue again But the fact that we've already seen it to me almost makes it more interesting Because i'm constantly on the edge of my seat Looking for the slight differences a slight nuances in how what we're seeing here Differs from what we already saw It's also intriguing to see charlotte in this role in our world She seems so put together and I wouldn't expect to see her in a messy situation like this one carrying on an affair with ol rick And she is like I said such a hard character to read So when ol rick says he wants to end things I have no idea how she's processing all that later hannah pays the police station a visit After determining that catarina is not ol rick's mistress. She goes to charlotte as the next option And tries to suss her out. She asks you look so different that you get a haircut And then gets very close to her gives charlotte a hug And I believe a wall there inspects her hair and in that moment determines Ulrich is having an affair with charlotte from there hannah pays visit to alexander titamin at the nuclear plant and again We see an updated version of a conversation.  She goes right from asking. How are you and bartoe shoulding up? Oh, by the way, I want to blackmail you into destroying this woman's life So it'll be interesting to see if this plot thread actually plays out on this world Because in our reality This plot never really went anywhere hannah asked alexander to destroy ol rick's life Meanwhile, ol rick was stranded in 1953. So we never actually saw the payoff. I'm wondering if here charlotte will actually suffer hannah's wrath Meanwhile, charlotte goes to investigate the doppler bunker where the unidentified boy was found She calls ol rick to check in on him see how he's doing Then once she's in the bunker finds a coin on a red cord Just like the one helga has Beginning to suspect helga has something to do with all this charlotte visits peter at the church when charlotte walks in she finds peter with someone Who you may recognize as bernadette? That's the prostitute who worked in the trailer by the truck stop in our world Though on this world the character is represented with more male Characteristics when charlotte walked in I definitely got the vibe that peter and this character Were having some kind of an intimate conversation So I think that is one of the elements that carried over from our world into this one So charlotte starts to question peter about helga. Where was helga last night back in 1987 when you came to wind in Did helga still have the cabin and did he use that bunker for anything in particular charlotte shows peter that penny she found And peter doesn't buy any of what she's saying. How could helga have had anything to do With that child's death. He was with me all evening Then peter gets a call and finds out that helga is at the police station right now having just confessed to Murdering that child at the station helga is saying over and over that he killed the boy charlotte and peter are struggling to make sense of it Then orick comes in and grabs helga thinking that helga did something to mad's How did you get mad's things? What did you do to him? Then helga has a reaction to orick.  So this confirms that most likely in this reality orick just like in our world will travel back to the fifties And bash helga's head with a rock Very curious how this is going to happen because in our world helga snuck out of the nursing home Went to the cave and orick followed him in order to time travel But in this world helga's in lockup So I think a couple of possibilities my guess is that orick is spooked by what helga said to him So maybe after hours orick is going to pay helga a visit And in their conversation helga is going to say something along the lines Of i'll show you where mad's is and take orick to the cave Or another possibility is that helga Will be let out of prison because even though he is confessing to this crime It won't make any sense to anybody. He's got a rock solid alibi. Peter and elizabeth were with him at night And nobody is going to speculate that yeah sure helga didn't kill the child now But he did 33 years ago and then sent the body to the future Then checking in on the martyr of this world. She's visited by orick her father Orick wants to know exactly what martyr magnus and the others saw in the bunker there When she sticks to her story that they saw essentially a portal open up and spit out a body Orick asks if maybe her and her friends were on drugs of some kind Is it possible that killian marta's boyfriend eric's older brother is it possible that killian slipped them some drugs Marta and magnus basically kick orick out of the house But marta thinks there might be something to what orick says She goes upstairs to talk to magnus and says maybe dad was right Maybe the body was already there and we just magnus doesn't even let her finish the thought and says i know what i saw marta then visits killian and killian lets marta know that orick has already questioned killian About whether or not he slipped marta and the others drugs marta asks did you and this Very much offends killian Apparently he is often used as a scapegoat him and his family Because they're seen as sort of low class. So he says i was right You were only with me all this time to rile up your parents as a sort of Rebellion marta leaves while jonas creepily watches from the darkness now at first i sort of Had a visceral negative reaction to killian in the first episode Only because he in essence was taking marta away from our jonas. It wasn't really fair of me But that's how i felt here i felt bad for him because i'm not sure he's wrong When he accuses marta of having been with him as a sort of rebellion But we'll find out along the way how much of a bond she really had with killian Is she at any point going to go back to him or as she gets pulled into this big time travel plot Is she going to forget about him now to be fair according to older marta There is some kind of eternal bond between marta and jonas Which is probably pretty hard for any guy to compete with marta goes to the woods and that's where jonas shows himself And they have another conversation jonas starts to mention some memories from marta's life to prove that he really knows her Finally the thing that gets her is jonas says that he knows the night that things went crazy in the cave Marta saw an image of herself in the woods She saw a version of herself covered in blood or some other black substance marta never told anybody about what she saw in the woods So when jonas says i know what you saw because your future self told me That gets her attention Enough that she is willing to follow jonas to the cave where they crawl down and get to that familiar metal door However, this door on their world instead of saying sick mundas creatus est It says erit lux, which means let there be light now. How do we interpret this? To me let there be light seems like a logical predecessor to Thus the world was created god says let there be light and then the world is created So i think there's a couple of possible interpretations here One if let there be light comes first Then is that implying marta's world is the original world? We've been assuming that jonas's world came first and somehow spun off into marta's alternate reality But that's really just a bias that comes from the fact that we Were first watching jonas's world. So that's the one we're invested in But could there be a twist which reveals that jonas's world is the alternate reality? That kind of makes sense when you think about the fact that one of the key features of jonas's world Is michel going back in time that is an unnatural thing to occur So if you say we've got a world marta's world and then michel goes back in time That creates the world that jonas lives in another possible interpretation Is think about how many characters have used the metaphor of light and dark claudia used it to say there's a good side and a bad side We're on the good side the light side no one used the same metaphor In opposition to claudia So if there is truly a light and dark side The fact that this door says let there be light could be an illusion to the fact that Marta on this world truly is the light Against adam's darkness that would also seem consistent with the idea that adam is trying to destroy the knot And create darkness while marta is trying to preserve it So a number of possible interpretations I doubt we'll get to the end and have one clean interpretation But maybe there'll be some more No pun intended a light shed on the question now earlier in the episode in 1888 on our world Marta used her device to escape before the others could find her Where did she go? She went to our world 2053 she's at the nuclear plant where she meets up with adam adam says so you gave it to him Marta nods and then he adds I was always too gullible. You did the right thing Marta then looks up and we see that the two of them are in a room Containing a version of the god particle. So in a strange twist It looks like marta from her world is working with adam on our world And jonis from our world is working with marta from the other world And in both cases I assume that the younger marta and jonis are being manipulated So both of our protagonists are being manipulated by each other's older selves from alternate realities So we've of course already seen younger jonis teaming up with a version of marta from the other world But i'm expecting at some point for our jonis to run into again the time traveling marta And what i'm wondering is instead of time traveling marta Manipulating jonis like she has been so far Will we see the two of them actually team up and potentially rally against the older marta and the older adam version of jonis When the younger marta and jonis realize that they're both being manipulated Now if they do that could it possibly achieve anything Or is that just part of the predetermined cycle of events that inevitably lead to the older adam And eve and ultimately the apocalypse If they are able to break from the predetermined cycle of events You've got to wonder what is different about this iteration of jonis and marta in this cycle What is different about them from previous cycles that allows them to break from the predetermined sequence of events If they are able to now still in 2053, but cutting over to the alternate world We see where jonis took alternate world marta when they went through the let there be light metal door They're in that world's post apocalypse Now where our world's apocalypse looks more like a nuclear winter This one looks more like a desert jonis tells marta She told me to take you here that she'd explain it to you Then we see somebody approaching them from the distance somebody that's covered in robes So you can't tell who they are until they get close and reveal themselves It looks to me like a middle-aged marta who then says welcome to the future Now i need to give myself a minor pat on the back here because when i did my season three trailer breakdown There were a few things i got wrong But also a couple things i got right and this was one of them when we saw that Robed figure walking towards jonis and marta I speculated we haven't seen a middle-aged version of marta That is kind of the counter to jonis's stranger character. So I thought maybe that's her And unless we find out otherwise next episode I believe that is who we met at the end of this episode and it was really just pure speculation on my part So minor pat on the back there. Anyway, another really solid episode. I continue to Thoroughly enjoy this season now seeing there's only five episodes left from here One thing i haven't thought too much about is how does this show end the show is called dark And in general it's been pretty bleak and hopeless Every time a character thinks they're doing something good There's a twist and it turns out that in reality They have set out on a predetermined course of events that never seem to lead anywhere very happy And you end up back in the apocalypse So it seems kind of silly to even ponder the possibility of a happy ending But after so much suffering Imagine how great a happy ending would feel now I know a lot of you have probably binged the season already. So you know where we're heading But i'm wondering if maybe we can get something bittersweet I feel like a happy ending Maybe it's too much to ask for but i love these characters so much That if we had an ending that's the knot is destroyed The apocalypse is averted but all our characters don't exist I would probably be pretty upset by that ending. So If happiness is out of the question i'm at least crossing my fingers for bittersweet Where maybe some of our characters get to survive and live out a happy life for Jonas The one thing i'm hoping for is i feel like ever since his father committed suicide He has not had a moment of joy from my perspective It seems like the last time jonas was truly happy for even a moment is when he was with marta upstairs at the neilson's party So i would like before the series end in the next five episodes I would love to just see one more moment of happiness for jonas If we're going to get a sad ending or even a bittersweet ending at a minimum for me to be satisfied at the conclusion of this series And not be totally emotionally broken. I just need to see that one moment of joy for jonas But we'll see anyway with that I think i can wrap up by saying if you enjoyed this video make sure to hit the like button Hit the subscribe button and of course the bell icon so you get notified The next time we do a video or the next time we go live I'm going to continue binging this season and after each episode. I'll do another one of these videos And once I get to the end of the season I'll do a live stream so we can have a live Discussion about the season as a whole try to dissect what we saw go through theories And just overall process this awesome series So you'll definitely want to make sure you're subscribed So you don't miss any of that with that. Thanks for watching and see you on the next one take Bye


What's the remedy Jason ever Jackson's case breaks calm last five mixture spots being given away here in this 2019 20 Penini mosaic cello basketball one-pack break round and team number 35 So again, what is very randomized customer names teams distribute the hits out of this one pack And then at the end of the break we're randomized customer names only and numbers one through five top five at the end of the randomizer We'll win a spot each in the Luca Alley you basketball mix that I already sold out. So last five last five spots here. So good luck Click dice world to four and a one five times. Good luck One two three four Five down a Joshua.  You have the Pelicans Ryan with the Knicks Robbie of the Heats Ashley with the Pistons Jack with the Nuggets Russell the Hawks Mike with the Cavaliers Wizards Hornets Joshua with the Magic Spurs T Wolves Mike with the Jazz Bulls Ryan with the Raptors Josh with the Kings Alrighty guys closing the trade window Someone really trades in this and then we'll do the quick pack break and then give away The last five spots I'm gonna look at dodge. It's give and go There's a middle two All right, there you go guys Let's quickly do the break now Oh, sorry the randomized you're not the break Five spots top five get in six into five eleven times one two three four five six seven eight nine ten eleven Eleven times Mike Melanie Aaron Rob and Zach Paul There you go. Congratulations I have the 11 times you five are in and now coming up next is the break. Appreciate it guys


Okay, we're back, we're live, I'm Jay Fidel, this is ThinkTex, the four o'clock block here in Honolulu on a given Monday and we're doing transitional justice today Monday and we're talking about transitional justice in Rwanda with Gerald Gajima who joins us from Maryland. Gerald, thank you for coming on the show. Thank you for having me. So you're from Rwanda and you've been there through crises and genocides. Can you tell us about your background? I understand you're a lawyer, but you're more than that. Tell us about your background. Okay, I'm from Rwanda. My family left Rwanda in 1961 as a result of violence that was taking place at that time. So Rwanda's violence goes a long way back. My father was killed during that violence. My mother brought me and my siblings up in the countries around East Africa, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, and I only returned to Rwanda after the genocide. And the genocide you're referring to was the early 90s and that took place in what part of Rwanda? Oh, the genocide took place in 1994 and it took place across the whole country. On every village, there were massacres.  It's not an inch of the country that did not experience the genocide. Let me see if I'm right about this. My recollection is that the Belgians had established artificial divisions among the people from the farmers and the ranchers, I guess, the Hutus and the Tutsis and they were killing each other. But even though they were all Rwandan in origin, am I right about that? No, the divisions in our society predate the arrival of Belgium.  And the majority of the population, Hutu and Tutsi alike were heavily exploited. So to blame the Belgians for inequality in our society prior to colonialism would not be correct. The mistake of the Belgians was that they consolidated those inequalities because they established a system where only sons of the Tutsi chiefs could have education. And if they had the education, they then had better access to opportunities for employment. So the Belgians favored the Tutsi aristocracy a great deal and that made the social inequalities in our society much deeper.  Well, I mean, these are people who were otherwise neighbors in the same villages or adjacent villages in the same communities.  What made them do that? That's a good and complex question. I think there are two factors, two very important factors. One factor is that historical grievances about the exploitation of the Hutu majority by the Tutsi aristocracy played a part in fomenting hatred. But political manipulation of the Hutu majority by opportunistic politicians also played a part. They blamed the Tutsi minority for every problem and just incited the population to kill their Tutsi neighbors as a means of trying to hold on to power. Is this unique in Rwanda? Well, was this kind of historic experience played out in other countries before or after? Can you make some comparisons? It's not unique to Rwanda. There are many other countries, especially in our region where the similar social systems of organizations existed. And I would think in other countries, even the West, the West transitioned from being a collection of feudal societies to what it is to deal with time. So people do not have to kill each other for social and political change to take place. So our situation, our social organization was not unique, but our way of dealing with inequalities in our social system were different and catastrophic. Well, can you tell me how catastrophic? And in what way catastrophic? Well, think of it this way, the Tutsi minority, there were maybe between 800 and 1,000 and a million of them, three quarters of the Tutsi population were killed during three months in 1994.  So about three quarters of the Tutsi population were killed in 1994. Oh, let me just take a little of your life here. So you and your family were in various places in Africa, outside of Rwanda, you were born there, but you were traveling and you were going to various schools including law schools in various places around Africa and you returned after the events of 1994 and five, why did you return? Was there something that drew you back to Rwanda? Well, that's a very good question because our return in a way contributed to the genocide. I told you that Rwanda has experienced periodic violence. So in 1959, the Belgians changed policies and they stopped supporting the Tutsi aristocracy, allied themselves with the Hutu majority and overthrew the monarchy and the Tutsi aristocracy. So I am supposed to do Tutsi. So the Tutsi were killed in large numbers and those who are not killed were driven to exile. And those who are not killed were driven to exile. Maybe about 300,000 Tutsis were driven from Rwanda in 1959 to 1961. So the policy of the Rwanda government was that the country was very small and that they did not want us back. But at the same time, the countries to which we had fled around East Africa, they did not want us either. So after 30 years in exile, we decided that we needed to go back to our country whether the country wanted us or not. And it so happened that one of the countries to which the Tutsi had fled was Uganda. And in the early 1980s, there was a rebel movement that was trying to topple the government of Uganda. That's the movement led by the current president of Uganda, Mr. Mseveni. Is this the time when Idi Amin was in power? This was slightly after Amin left power. So we joined Mseveni's army and when he took power, we formed the big proportion of his army. And in 1994, when these were in the Ugandan army, I was not a soldier, I was not in the army, but many of these were in the Ugandan army, decided to leave their positions in Uganda and they attacked Rwanda because they said the government of the day could not keep them as refugees against their will. But what happened is that the government of the day, instead of fighting the rebels, instead took revenge on innocent Tutsis who are living inside the country. And that's how the genocide occurred. What they were saying is that if they had killed us all in the 1960s, we would never have returned to kill them. So they decided that they would now kill all the Tutsis so that no one should leave to tell the story. And it's actually 60 minutes interview that I did immediate after the genocide on this very topic.  Oh, I know who you mean, yeah. I forget his name. Yeah, he's still there. No, he died a few years ago. Oh, okay, I was talking about somebody else then. So, you went back, what kind of reception did you get? Was the enmity between the Hutu and the Tutsi the same as during the genocide, or had it improved when you went back? So actually during the genocide, I was not the one that I was in the United States. I was representing the rebel group in the United States. In the United States. So I was at the United Nations trying to raise awareness about the genocide. I was in Washington trying to talk about to Congress, to the State Department, to the Defense Department about what was going on in Gwanda. And after the genocide, I really did not feel like going back because of what had happened. But then I felt an obligation to go back and help the rebuilding of the country. So I went, so when I went back, what was it like? You can imagine a country where literally, massacres have taken place on every hill across the country, in every village. So did people welcome us? They had no choice because we were the victors. They had to accept us. Were they happy with us? No, because violence, if we were divided before the genocide, the genocide drove us even farther apart and memories of these things live on for a very long time. I worked in Bosnia after I left Gwanda and as a judge, I remember going through documents, witness statements of women who have been killed by sub-soldiers and the sub-soldiers, the orthodox in terrorizing Bosnian women, Muslims, they would blame them for atrocities that were committed against the subs. In the 1400s by the tax. So 600 years later, people still bore grievances. So is Gwanda united by no means? We are still very divided. Along the same lines? Along the same lines, yes. So gee whiz, you describe in such analytical terms, Gerald, a state of madness, a state of complete chaos, a state of rampant hatred and violence and killing. How do you feel about that? What I will say is that it was not chaotic. It was organized. Violence on that scale does not happen without a government in power that is in control and is determined to carry out its plan to exterminate a section of the population. Ordinary people would never rise up and kill three quarters of a community unless all institutions of the state, the army, the police, the civilian government allow working in coordination to cut out atrocities on that scale. So it was not chaotic. It was very organized and systematic. People woke up every day and said they were going to work. Civil servants, military people, ordinary civilians. And by saying they were going to work meant they were going to look for people to kill. So it was not chaotic. It was organized. It was systematic and it lasted for almost 100 days. I think the government affirmatively killed people. Did they send the military or the police or other representatives of the government to actually do the killing or did they somehow foment the killing by the people in the countryside? How did that happen? Both, some, especially the police in the villages were involved in direct attacks. The army often came in when two civilians tried to defend themselves, but largely the government of them, they had trained the militia, civilian militia that they armed and let loose across the country to do the killing. So I asked you, Gerald, how you felt about that? You haven't really answered me. It's, you know, I, what can I say? I, after, for about four years from 1999 to 2003, I was the prosecutor general. My primary responsibility was to arrange the investigation and try of some of those cases. And I did cut out some investigations and of the higher ranking people. The, so every case that I handled, I would think that this was the most evil that I could ever confront. But every new case appeared even worse. So what do I feel about it? It's just not human. It's not what people do. It's hard to explain what takes possession of, or people to commit virus on that scale. I had a friend, when people used to say that during the genocide, the perpetrators of the atrocities were behaving like animals. And my friend would say, no, animals don't kill each other like this. It's worse, behaving worse than animals.  I have no words to describe it. Well, where do you put it in your appreciation of humanity, of the human experience, the human condition? It happened. It happened on a large scale. It happened not only in Wanda, but maybe in other places too, in different ways. Could it happen again? Unfortunately, yes, it can happen again because Wanda was not the first. In memory, I mean, we remember like, for example, the attacks of the Armenians, of the attacks against the Armenians, where a hundred years ago, to this day, Pakistan refuses even to acknowledge that violence. It happened in Cambodia. So it can happen even today. It makes me feel our nature as human beings. It's very precarious.  So I believe violence on this scale can happen in any place. All that needs, all that is needed for it to happen is to have people in authority willing to do it, willing to go for it, and having a pretext that they can use to go to a part of the population. If you woke up today and seriously advocated that there are too many Hispanics in the United States and the United States armed forces were willing to look the other way. It could easily happen. So it can happen anywhere. People used to think, for example, that Europe was a very civilized country. That when you read about history, historical texts, you see many references to civilized nations and barbaric nations. But in the 1930s, in the lifetime of many people who are living today, Hitler was able to convince millions of people to wake up, attack their Jewish neighbors and try to exterminate them from the first of yet. And this is one of the so-called most civilized nations. So it can happen anywhere. Well, you have seen it very close up. And I wonder if you see yourself as different because of your proximity, your study, your adjudication, your investigation of what happened. Do you see yourself as different from the ordinary person in the street because of that? Not really, because most of the people who were responsible for these atrocities, they were ordinary people, professional men, doctors, lawyers, even priests.  And because this violence happens because it becomes acceptable to people. During the genocide, there are many people who did not pick up machetes to kill their neighbors, but they looked and didn't speak up. They saw what was going on. They did not hide their neighbors. They felt that, you know, it was none of their business. So what do you draw the line of responsibility for evil? Is it just the people who bear the guns and the machetes? Or do you also attribute responsibility to bystanders? And there are many people like me who are bystanders at best, or even accomplices by, you know, not taking up the machetes or the guns, but inciting the violence, like journalists like you. I remember when we were in Kigari before I left, before the genocide broke out. There was one radio station. It ran like 34 hours a day, inciting violence against the Tutsi. And we would listen to it nonstop, not because of we approved what they were saying, but because, I mean, it's hard to imagine that a radio station, a journalist can do something like that. So there were people, even journalists, priests, people you would not expect to participate to be involved in the atrocities. I think as you said, there's a burden on everyone to take steps that would minimize the risk of this happening again in any place where it might happen, which could be any place. And so you've dedicated a good part of your life as a lawyer and somebody involved in investigating the atrocities to that issue. And I wonder if you could help us understand what you have to do in a given community, by virtue of your investigation, by virtue of the International Criminal Court at The Hague, by virtue of a government that's more enlightened, what do you have to do to develop the accountability and to minimize the risk that leaders, negative leaders will emerge again from whatever part of the society and that people will not stand by again from whatever part of the society to allow this to happen. How have you been doing that? How do you think it's best done? First of all, we need to have justice. All this happens because a culture of impunity has been established. In Rwanda, this killing started in the 60s, but the people who committed the killings were rewarded instead of being held accountable. Like when we left Rwanda, I doubt that the person who killed our father was ever prosecuted. The people who took our property were never told to bring it back. Leaders who led killings were instead rewarded by being appointed to public offices. So impunity breeds violence. And that's why we are involved in transitional justice, like what Project Expedite Justice does. The hope is that if you can hold people accountable, people will learn from them and will think twice before they commit such atrocities. But I need to just make one clarification. It's not enough to have justice, told perpetrators of atrocity accountable. Justice alone will not solve this problem. You, at the same time, have to have political reforms that address the root causes of the conflicts in the society. Because if you do not address the root causes, you are bound to repeat the mistakes of the past. And that's in Rwanda, yes, we've tried perpetrators of the genocide, but we've not addressed the root causes of the conflict, which struggles between the two groups for control of political power. The challenge is what kind of political system can you put in place that guarantees everyone security and equal opportunity, where people do not feel that if the other group is in power, they will work to exterminate them. So Rwanda has done well in terms of bringing perpetrators of the genocide justice, but it has had less success in calling out political reforms that address the root causes of problems and difficulties. Yeah, well, let me drill down into two elements of what you were talking about. When you say justice, Gerald, what do you mean? You mean if you find somebody, for example, who has been guilty of a massacre, what do you do with him? Do you put him in jail?  What do you do with him? What is justice for that person? Assume that the case has been proven. First of all, when there is large scale violence, we have to think of justice in different terms from justice in a normal country. There is no legal system that was ever designed to deal with mass atrocity.  So hundreds of thousands, maybe millions were involved in committing atrocities. So initially, after the genocide, we thought we could investigate and prosecute all of them, but after some time we realized that really mass atrocity is not something that you can deal with by investigating and prosecuting every case. So justice in the situation of mass atrocity must be different. It must be a combination of different things. You can't prosecute some people. Those who bear the greatest responsibility. You can give people who bear less responsibility, less say yes, punishment, maybe by going through systems like the truth and reconciliation commissions that some countries have gone through like South Africa. Tell people that if they can acknowledge their wrongdoings, you can maybe ensure that they do not go to prison, but maybe they can do community service. And you can provide justice, not maybe by sending perpetrators to prison, but by providing reparations to the victims. Or even the mere fact of acknowledging the wrongdoing, the suffering of the victims, that in itself is justice. So justice in a situation where violence has occurred on a large scale is a combination of all these mechanisms, not forgetting the international mechanisms as well, because what happens is that when violence is committed by people who are in power, or who come to power after war, it's not reasonable to expect that their own governments can hold them accountable. So there is room for international criminal justice as well to hold high level perpetrators accountable because there is no opportunity for them to be held accountable in their national ecosystems. So justice is many things in a situation where mass atrocity has happened. Well, you mentioned truth and reconciliation. You mentioned the intervention of other powers, especially when there's a government that may at least be in part responsible. Has that happened in Rwanda? Has there been truth and reconciliation in Rwanda? Has there been intervention by other powers that have stepped in or wanted to step in in order to adjudicate or participate in the justice system? What happened is that during 1994, the genocide happened after American forces were attacked in Somalia. So the Clinton administration was very determined that they would not send a single American soldier to Rwanda to help the victims of the genocide. And because the genocide, when America does not, because the US did not want to send soldiers to Rwanda, they made it impossible for the UN to do so as well. In fact, we had a peacekeeping force, but they withdrew it after the genocide started. And that was clear in the movie, Hotel Rwanda. They were not active. There is no precedent for the international community intervening to stop atrocity outside Europe. It only happened in Kosovo. And we only wonder whether that was done because the victims were white. But no, there was no intervention. There was no serious attempt to stop the genocide when it happened by, there was no attempt by the major. Should the United Nations have been more active? Should the United Nations have stopped the, taken affirmative steps, even physical military steps to stop what was happening in Rwanda? It should have, but as I told you, the Clinton administration, and I told you I was in Washington and New York, the Clinton administration, and I met Madden Roebright when she was ambassador to the UN. And we were at the State Department almost every other week, trying to talk about the genocide. And they would tell us, we are not going to send American soldiers. What you should do is stop fighting and go back to the negotiating table. But it's so difficult to negotiate with people who are committing genocide. So yes, it would have been good if the UN had been able to intervene to stop the genocide or to prevent it. But the US government had decided that they were not going to get involved. Neither were they going to allow the United Nations to be involved. You know, Gerald, I have one last question and it sort of sums up what I've learned from you. So here, Rwanda, there was a history of genocide, of mass killing massacre, killing back in the 50s. And so it was embedded at least in the recent culture.  And the people who conducted the massacres were on both sides of the equation, they were completely divided in a lethal way where they didn't believe the government was gonna take care of them. And that it sounds like to me the democracy or at least the sense of confidence in the government had dissipated in there somewhere, nobody believed the government would protect him, nobody believed they would be treated fairly. And that was the ardor dish, so to speak, of the violence that followed, that the government had essentially failed. It failed both sides, Hutus and Tutsis both. And I guess what I'm asking you is that this, and also you said that this could happen anywhere. So if I give you a hypothetical country where the government has failed, where the people are divided, even violently divided, that's when you could, and the democracy or whatever form of government it was is gone and nobody has confidence in it anymore. That's the environment in which this kind of genocide could happen, the con use said could happen again, that's the environment which would allow it to happen again. Am I right? You're very right, a hundred percent. At Geary these things do not happen in democracies. They happen in dictatorships. In countries where there's a facade of a democracy, but the president wins elections by 98%. If he's not the sole candidate, he's still able to win by crazy margins. So, but no, the government didn't fail. The government succeeded because its goal, its plan was to wipe out the Tutsi community and they succeeded because they killed three quarters of the Tutsi community. So they didn't fail, they succeeded. When we went to Rwanda, my colleagues, some of them used to say, we won the war. But I'll tell them, how could you even think you won the war? You lost three quarters of the population and you think you won a war? So no, the government did not fail. The government succeeded. It got what it wanted. It got, they wanted to exterminate the Tutsi community until not a single one was left to tell the story and they went three quarters of the way towards achieving their goals. My mind reminded of that old quote that the wars and history are told by the survivors. The history of wars, the history of humanity is told by the survivors. And the pictures, yeah. Cheryl, they're wonderful to talk to you. I've learned so much in these two minutes and I really appreciate you coming on the show and talking about it with me and answering my questions. I dearly sincerely appreciate it. It's been a pleasure, a privilege to talk to you. Thank you so much. Thank you, Cheryl Gajima. Transitional Justice in Rwanda, here on the Transitional Justice Show on Monday afternoon on Think Tech Hawaii. I hope we can meet again. Me too. I will.


This is the 11 o'clock Tiger Financial News Network market update down 23, 36,376. It really needs to just pop one penny above the high of yesterday if today's a peak C early next week. And then we get the D above 36,678.44. One penny above. We'll start that leg D. And then I think we've got to be a bit careful again. And yet technically to say, oh, be careful. But I am looking at a lot of daily charts in peak CD and E. And some even an F. And that just says, well, we could be getting closer to some kind of a consolidation. Well, I'm going to talk about it will be a some kind of consolidation. And we'll see what happens. Look, the S&P made an all-time high yesterday. Today it's a little bit lower, it's a 260, down 260 at 470, 4776, 21. We'll see what happens. And that's just a signal to say, hey, this is the Chapman mythology. This is where you become a little bit careful. You look at the QQQ and the X103 98.84 down $1.53. Not acting that well. And certainly the IWM, which is the Russell 2000 holding at a plus two cents at 222.95 just hasn't done what you expect small caps to do at the end of the year. We were speaking a moment ago with one of our callers and we're looking at the IW, am I going to forget what it was, IWF, which is the IW, that's the 1000, IWV, I think it was. We were looking at the, actually the Russell 3000 and that seems to be doing a little bit better. Yep, there it is. IWV, the Russell 3000 seems to be much, much better. It looks actually like the S&P a little bit. So we're looking at selectivity. Gold tried to rally earlier on, it's still up eight and a half. Nice action. It's really just good action. It's not great yet, but it's good action. And looking at Crude Oil holding okay in the 76ers and you've got the TLT just not telling us too much about bonds. They're trying to rally some 56 cents, but the yields are really stuck in the range and that's kind of key. That's really important. So I am going to wish you all just a wonderful, wonderful weekend, but a very happy New Year's to you all and a healthy one and a successful one. You know here at TFNN, we try our best to give our viewers, our listeners, our subscribers just the best we can. And thank you to Tom O'Brien and the crew for everything you do here at TFNN for us so that the hosts can just step in, do their thing and then step out just the way it should be and have a wonderful weekend. Stay tuned. You've got programming coming up all day and hope to see you bright and breezy 2022.