Good morning. Nobody's hung over, right? OK, cool. So you can talk about some classes, then. We can get it down and dirty with some code, and we can tear into some really interesting stuff. So I'm going to talk about aligning Ember with web standards. My name is Matthew Beal. I go by MixOnic, and I work with a great consulting firm called 2Increated. We're really just three people, but we do wonderful Ember work, and we're really proud of it. So I want to dive straight in, because we've got a lot to try and go through in a little bit of time. So the JavaScript standardization process is something that we've thrown out a lot of names for. We have ES6, we have ES7, ES2015 has come around, and I'm pretty sure all this highlights a change in the way that we're standardizing JavaScript. Now, this is super exciting, but it is really important context when we think about how we work with new JavaScript features today and how we're going to be working with them in the future. These colors are going to be really popular on slides for the next year, so get used to them. There are two major standards groups that we need to think about when we're talking about web applications. And the first one, the WD and W3C, they focus on things that are HTML-ish things, so stuff like DOM, things like XHR, they deal with a couple of things that aren't strictly DOM like streams, but for most part, they're restricted to things that are browser APIs. The second group is TC39, and they work with ECMO International to standardize JavaScript itself. They work on things like classes, for, if, let, like things that are more syntactical and broad language features that you would see in Node or IOJS, something like that. But there's a different way that you can slice these, and this is kind of what I want to talk about, because this is where the big shift is happening. The WG and TC39 are working groups. So working groups are tasked with the job of coming up with a proposal for a spec and then submitting that spec to the standards group. So they're the ones who actually have to do the hard work of getting consensus around different ideas and maturing those ideas, getting those ideas to be experimented on in the wild and implemented in browsers in the wild, so we can all try them before they really become solid standards. In 2008, the WG was given the task of creating HTML5, and they worked on it for a few years. 2011 came around, they said, great, I'm gonna go ahead and we're ready to standardize this thing, and they realized they weren't done. They realized that HTML would never be done. And so the idea of releasing a one-time standard and then starting all over again was really exhausting. So instead they said that they'd move to a new development model where the technology is version. We have a living document, and this was kind of like a revolutionary idea that we would have a living standard for something. So instead of having a strict thing where you adhere to this document, we have a document that the WG can increment over time and make changes to. If we look at JavaScript, TC39 and ECMAScript International, they have their own storied, varied history. ES3 is the version of JavaScript that we use in IE8. If you support IE8, and Ember still supports, but besides that, you're not really gonna interact with it anymore. There was an attempt to create ES4, and ES4 is actually a lot of the ideas that we're looking at today in ECMAScript 2015 were part of ES4, but they couldn't gain consensus because it's a big process with a lot of people and it's one version, so you all have to be aligned when you make this decision, so it just failed. So they threw it away, and then a few years later after they realized that JavaScript wasn't dead and the Web 2.0 was booming, they came up with ES5, which was really compromised. It was let's just throw all the things that we can on the raft and we'll survive for now. And so we started working on ES6, which was going to be yet another giant release, right? Like all these things, but that's been kind of nuked. And instead we have ES2015. And the idea of moving from a giant hovercraft to sailboats here is that the change in the process is that we're gonna focus more on individual features, and we're gonna focus less on having a huge big bang release with all this stuff built into JavaScript. So this is like a big change in JavaScript, right? And this means that HTML and JavaScript are gonna kind of work better together and both focus on features. This is the list of features that you can go on to GitHub and you can see what TC39 is working on. And you can see they all have on the right hand side a stage. So the idea here is all these standards, all these individual features will move through these five stages, and as they go through them they'll actually be used in the wild. So as soon as something gets to a proposal you should be able to try it out if you wanna try it out. By the time it gets to be a draft you can probably maybe use it in Babel behind an experimental flag or in a browser behind an experimental flag. Candidate means it's out there and you can really use it. And by the time we get to four it means it's done in shipping. And then the aim is that when we get to ECMAScript 2015, 2016, 2017 we'll just be able to say what features are stage four and bundle them up, hand them off. And that's very similar to what happens with HTML5 where the living standard is changed all the time and when W3C, the standards organization wants to release a version what WG says, go ahead, snapshot the document, release five. And that's exactly what they're doing. There's an HTML5, a 5.1, a 5.2 and they're gonna come out over two year increments. JavaScript looks like it'll come out maybe every year. So we'll have the 2015, 2016 snapshot. And so this is kind of new that we have this across the board living thing, right? We think right now about stuff like, many of you use Babel and we're gonna talk about Babel but it used to be called six to five, right? Because it compiled down to ECMAScript five. We're gonna be iterating more in the future and these features are gonna kind of be churning under us on the platform. So we need to figure out a way to live with this. So this is not gonna be a one-time event. The idea that we align with ECMAScript six is not gonna happen once. It's gonna be ongoing and it's not gonna be free. There is gonna be pain. So I think it's worth taking just a moment to talk about why we use standards especially in Ember and why we're so serious about using them in the framework and getting you guys to use them in applications. And the goal is really productivity which is the watchword and like the key value that Ember is trying to bring to you. Standards have a couple really important benefits. They're especially for you guys as developers and productive developers, they're portable. So if you build an Ember application and you learn how to use ES6 modules when you start working on a React application or an Angular application and it uses ES6 modules, you're gonna already have this knowledge. This is not new knowledge, you don't need to retrain every time you change to a new framework or something like that. They obviously reflect best practices because this is something that has been hammered on to gain consensus on from a lot of different parties. There's a lot of input going into it and a lot of making sure that it will be something that we can all live with and work with for a long time. And they will endure. In 10 years, if you're writing JavaScript, you will be using modules. This is not something that you're gonna have to throw away this knowledge. You can actually build your own career and productivity on this and not constantly be churning and learning new things. And these are why in Ember we're very serious about trying to get standards into the code base and into your code bases instead of doing one-off custom syntaxes and custom APIs. The second thing is that participants win. So when we work with standards like this, when we do adopt them early, we get an opportunity to provide feedback to the standards and actually influence them. Modules are a great example. Promises are an example of some place where Ember picked them up early and was able to actually submit information back upstream to let them know what was working and not working. There's a life cycle here and Ember and your applications are at the loving center of it. So transpilers are a new tool, right? This isn't the first time we've had to move in between versions of JavaScript though. We already in the past went from like ES3 to ES5 and when HTML5 came out, this was another time when we had to add a whole bunch of features to the language and work with a bunch of new APIs that maybe weren't supported on older platforms. And Remy Sharpe came up with this idea of polyfill, which he likes to say was rooted in the Greek, but also admits was influenced by a spackle. And the idea was that there was holes in your platform of ES3 or of HTML4 and you want to fill up those holes with little things that behave that fill that gap.  And moving from ES5 to ES2015 has been a little bit different, right? We have some things that we can use that same strategy with, but let's take a look. There's a new API for maps and maps is a class. It acts like an object and it's pretty straight ahead. We can go ahead and polyfill that one and we do. We have a polyfill in Ember. We have promises and promises are yet another thing that we can also polyfill. So this is great. The strategy is working pretty well. ES6 has proxies and the way the proxy works here is you have a get and if you ever access any of the properties, like whatever there, it'll go through get and you'll have the opportunity to do a little bit of work, log access or something. And this is impossible to polyfill. There's no way for us to do like an unknown property on JavaScript objects. So polyfills are not going to service well here. And the second thing is like this fat arrow syntax on line four, this is not going to be polyfilled because it's a brand new syntax, right? It's a parsing error. So a runtime polyfill isn't going to be sufficient. We're going to have to use a different strategy. And this is where Babel comes in, which is not news to many of you, but Babel is, in case you haven't used it before, is a tool that takes your ES6, ES2015 new JavaScript code and turns it into ES5 old JavaScript code without you needing to worry about too many details. It looks like this when you actually use it. It'll take like a fat arrow function and turn it into some code that changes the context of this. And it enables us to do a couple new things, new syntaxes, which are greats. It enables us to use some API polyfills. It comes with some API polyfills, but it doesn't help us do everything, but it helps us do a lot of the new features in ES6, which is really incredibly useful and very different from the last time that we had to do this. So they changed the name from six to five. And when they did, James wrote a blog post and he said that Babel was not born to die, was his phrase. And I'm not quite sure he knew how true that was. If you go look at this ES6 table, this is a table of what browsers support what ES6 features. So for six to five to die, everything would have to be all the way up to date with ES6, right? That also means we wouldn't have any new features coming in. So we're gonna have this constant churn. I want to take a minute to look at how this breaks down. There's a feature called UNA array, which is often used for Canvas. So it's actually been around for a long time. This exists in ES6 features. So this doesn't even need to be part of Babel. Babel doesn't even need to worry about this because it's already there for you. It's been there for a really long time. So they're already omitting some things that are technically part of ES6. Something like the spread operator is something that they do process for you, but it actually works if you use it in Firefox. So in Firefox, you're shipping this polyfill that you really don't need. You're shipping this transpilation that you don't need. Block level function scope is another thing and of course this is the opposite and it only works in Chrome. So we've got, sometimes we're shipping code to Chrome that doesn't need sometimes to Firefox and sometimes to IE. And so the surface that we're working on is inconsistent, right? It's not as simple as saying a transpile ES6 to ES5. It's actually much more complicated. Babel has its set of features, Chrome has its set, Firefox has its set. And if you bring in other browsers, this quickly turns into some kind of multi-dimensional, spatial string theory intersection of what features you actually want to transpile and send down. So what I hope we can do more in the future with Babel is get a more flexible tool where we can focus on what features are actually being transpiled. You can do this now. Today there's like a blacklist that you can say I don't want these features to be transpiled. So you'd be able to say I'm only going to use Chrome, which I would not suggest you do. So I don't need this certain feature and I can leave this out and not ship that code down to the browser. I think a mapping to platforms would be simpler to think about. You should be able to say I want to support the last two modern browsers and it'll just take care of throwing away the things that you'd actually don't need to transpile in. In two years, you'll probably be using Babel, right? This seems reasonable. You'll have some code bases that use it. And even in like five years, maybe, will you be using Babel? You think you'll still be transpiling? Do you think that with the continuing addition of features, you'll be using it in 10 years? I think this tool is gonna be around for a really, really long time and that it's gonna be an important tool and that we should continue to put effort into it and encourage Babel to get better and contribute things back upstream as we need them to work in Ember. So the third thing to touch on is Ember's object model. So there are some specific APIs as we go ahead and move things in Ember that go into ES6. We try and not just pick everything that goes into a spec or goes into a draft. We have a little bit of criteria. We want to know that it's stable that the spec isn't going to churn. So a lot of you use modules. We weighed a little bit with modules, but you still felt, for those of you who adopted them early, like churn in the syntax, and it'd be nice if we can get things before they're too early, but it's a balancing act because you also want to be able to submit feedback upstream. We want to know that it's actually a good pattern, something that's useful that solves the problem well. A good example might be Object Observe, which originally looked like it was gonna solve all of our problems and then the more that people worked on it, we realized maybe that's actually not the most ideal pattern. It's not going to solve all of our problems so we haven't done a lot of work with it. I want to make sure that they're actually implemented correctly and performantly, that there's not inconsistent bugs in it across different platforms and that the implementations are fast. An example might be Weakmap. Weakmap is a great new feature in ES6, but was very slow in some browsers. And so it's something that we really couldn't embrace just because the implementations weren't quite up to speed yet. And what I want to talk about is ECMAScript classes. And I'm gonna call them ECMAScript classes and I think this is actually a good way to think about these things. They're not ECMAScript 2015 classes or ES6 classes. They are just part of JavaScript and we should just start talking about them as if they are part of JavaScript. There are really four or three things that go into classes in JavaScript and we're gonna go through some of these features in case you guys haven't looked at them in detail before. So here's a class, has a constructor on line two, has a two string on line six. We have no commas. We have these scoped short syntax functions and it's nice syntax. We can go and create it. We can call it two string and it works. That's a pretty simple example of a class. If we use extends, then we have a constructor. You just extend the vehicle. Vehicle there can either be a class or a vehicle can be a traditional ES5 class which some of you have made before where you have a function for a constructor and you add methods onto the prototype. Definitely compatible. Or it can be an actual object. It can just be a bare object. And then we can use that. Super is, yeah, super syntax is used here. So in the subclass, we want to call the two string of our parents. And you notice that we call super which identifies like the target for all of these different methods. It identifies the methods that are upstream for you. You can delegate to that. In constructors, it's a little bit different though. In constructors, you call super as if it was a function which kind of makes sense if you're used to ES5 classes where you have a function for constructor and then a prototype for properties. This same kind of system works where you have a super calling up. So there are some gotchas if we wanted to pour Ember apps and syntax over to this, right? We have a whole new syntax which means we need to use a transpiler. We can't polyfill a new syntax. It's something that has to be parsed and has to be outputted as our ES5 code. There's changes in the way that super behaves. Both in the syntax of it and actually when you look at the spec in the way that semantics work, what properties it has access to. Mixins, there's no real story for mixins here, right? It didn't look like there was anything that we had as a solution for that problem. There's no set unknown property which is something that we have in Ember today and that would just end up disappearing. Merged and concatenated properties are something that we would, there's certainly no allowance for but we can probably implement on our own and we always need to consider the transpiler output. So what does Babel actually do and is that still performance? Is that still something that works like people expected to work? There are changes we need to make to make sure it doesn't, when Babel compiles code, it outputs code that is used locally in that scope. We need to make sure we don't ship that code like a thousand times for every file and Ember. So this gets us maybe halfway there to the syntax. Just let alone even all those problems, we're still not quite there yet, right? We didn't have a bunch of other things that we would expect like computed properties and observers. So there is a discussion about introducing decorators into ECMAScripts and this is something that Yehuda has been advocating for and Angular has also been advocating for something similar, other decorators or annotations. So I'm going to use an example here of decorators and this is taken from something that Yehuda was working on. Adder, online two and three is a decorator that implement as functions so you would have a function called Adder which would be passed the class itself and you'd be able to attach things to it. Online nine, we have a descriptor that's focused on that one property, online 10 and that would get passed like the class and that property name and the actual descriptor like the getter itself and that would allow you to modify it or wrap it in proxies and all kinds of stuff. So we'd be able to say depends on turn it into a computed property and give it dependencies. So how do we actually, given this like landscape of things that aren't compatible and some things that don't actually exist yet that are totally just taken literally out of tweets and notes from the ECMAScripts board, how do we actually go about trying to align with this? I think it's not going to be, it's not like a switch, I wish I could say that we're here and we have like a switch that we can flip to move over to them, but it's not gonna happen. In many ways, this is like what frameworks do, right? We're ahead of the standards and so we're identifying the problems and the challenges that need to be solved in the standards themselves. So our strategy is probably going to be something like a private use so we can, there's a lot of places in Ember today internally where we use bespoke ES5 classes. We use functions with things put on the prototype. We have our custom super syntax that we sometimes use or super pattern that we sometimes use inside of Ember. If we can replace those things with actual ECMAScripts six classes, I think that's a really good starting point. And then we can provide a legacy wrapper around that that gives you Ember objects so you can continue to use Ember objects and maybe use some new syntaxes as a carrot to get you to move over to the new thing instead of using the legacy wrapper. Some ideas for what this could look like. This was actually just modified with stuff just now outside. When you're extending a class in ECMAScript six, you can extend any object or any other class. So Ember object itself, of course, just returns a JavaScript object that has a lot of extra stuff on it. I'm missing a closed parentheses too. Yeah, yeah, painful. Yeah, glad I'm not here doing Torren's thing. So you've got your super call in there, but some things aren't ideal here, right? You're using this.super on line seven. So we haven't really moved you over to ECMAScript six classes.  It's just so you get this nice sugar for class whatever extends something else. So pleasant but not ideal. However, it would maybe unblock us if we could get Ember object itself to be just an ECMAScript class. For some things, it would be appropriate where you don't need observers and you don't need computer properties. You'd be able to use like the full modern syntax, which would feel really good. And then we could implement things like merge properties and can cap properties inside of our Ember, custom Ember object here. And this would work pretty well for components. Largely because of the work that Tom Nihuda demoed with Glimmer. We require far fewer observers. So we don't really need computer properties and we don't really need observers in our components as much as we did before. And this might give us the opportunity to move them over to a more pure ECMAScript class format and maybe get some performance benefits out of avoiding observers at the same time. So I think there's a lot of promise for that being one of the initial spots where you could start using ES classes in your apps. This is gonna be a story of Ember 2.0 to 3.0. It's not a story of Ember 1.0 to 2.0. And I wanna remind you all that. Standards are a two-way street. When you run into problems with them, I guess I don't encourage you to immediately open up an issue on GitHub to push it up to them. But if you explore it and you think that you find something that can be done better or can be improved upon, really the Ember community is at the vanguard of working with standards groups. And I think that we have the opportunity and kind of clout to actually have some influence. So that's really exciting for us all as members of the community to know that we're really building the web and building the future of our own careers and everything else in technology. Great, so we have one more thing. Woo, woo. Okay. So a few weeks ago we announced that we were gonna do an unofficial Ember community survey. I'm not gonna share everything here. I'm gonna tell you guys that there's a link that you can go if you wanna see results from the survey. We put together a summary of what we think are some salient points. And you can of course download the full results if you wanna do some deeper analysis. I'd like to thank Brian Ronells who's on Twitter as ClimbingDark who's been our intern through this process and did a lot of emailing every single meetup organizer on meetup.com that he could find and reaching out to a lot of different people to get them to share the survey with you guys. We got over 900 responses, which was really exciting. Two, just two things that I wanna share from it. The first one is this is a list on the left of what people use number four. And there's a lot of people building product. And I think that's really exciting as someone who loves building products and thinks that that's like a really fun part of the web, an important part of what the web does. So that's really great. The second chart on the right is how many people plan to be hiring the same amount or more Ember developers next year. And it's about even in between the same amount or more. And I think that's a great sign for growth that companies are not ramping down on Ember. They are at least half, well short of half of them are ramping up on Ember. And that's like super exciting to see as someone involved in the community. And the second thing is that this is our chart of who has adopted releases. And when you look at this, it doesn't actually say here, yeah, 75%. So above the one nine, which was the stable when we started this and one 10 came out while we were doing it, one nine to the right was 75% of respondents. So 75% of people are using latest versions of Ember. And that's like a really exciting testament to our semantic versioning and the stability that we definitely all I think value at this point. And that's about it. So thank you, you wonderful Ember community people.


Biwa na makanga amuka.  And right about now, we want to talk about matters even planning, you know, biya shara here and there. We have to teach you how to make money and just show you that there are things out there that you can do that sila zima ukwe kwa ofisi the entire day. Are you together? So I have Jared from Bodja Entertainment and he'll be telling us more about Bodja Entertainment, what they do and what they're all about. Kayu wu sana kwa yusho. Thank you so much. How are you doing? I'm good. How are you? I'm good. You look pretty. Yani, tukwe kene... Pardon? You look pretty. Thank you. But do I say... I love you so much. I love you so much. Wukitana amesinda kini ingi liya leo. I'll let you have a good comment. Mutua kikwa kuwa. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Eh, kama kitu lii poa? I'm a graffiti. I'm a graffiti. I'm a graffiti. I'm a graffiti. I'm a graffiti. Ash... Ash... Ash... Ash... Ash... Ash... Eh, riswa. Riswa. Anyway, Jared. Ya. Kumbai. Kumbai. Kumbai. Kumbai. Kumbai. Kumbai. Kumbai. Kumbai. Shhh, tunongia na Jared. Taw. Kindly introduce yourself and tell us what Bogey is all about. My name is Jared from Bogey Entertainment. Ya. I know a couple of people might not know Bogey Entertainment, but we have been in the industry for a couple of years. Ya. Four years, five years now. Ya. So we started by marketing clubs. Ya. So we thought that this is a space that it is not utilized. Ya. The gap between a director and the DJs and also how the club can connect to the club because it is all about entertainment. Mm-hmm. Ukuna yukitawa kwenyumbu nasimona in the club flani. Mm-hmm. Lasimoku na Johnny Nani na Chesa and how the entertainment is apart from the service and all that. Mm-hmm. So Bogey mainly focuses on marketing and entertainment. Ya. Ya. So that's what we do in this country. Mm-hmm. Ya. So is it when you talk about marketing, you're just doing marketing for clubs solely? No, no, no. Mm-hmm. We don't do clubs only. Mm-hmm. We also do for brands also. Okay. Ya. So the connectivity between the club and even the brand itself. Mm-hmm. Maybe a BL, maybe Panorika. Mm-hmm. So you're just reaching out to all these people that want to kwangakwa entertainment? Ya. So you're talking about DJs, you're talking about the brands, you're talking about what else? Who else is in? The clients. The clients, yes. Ya, ya, ya, ya. So that's it. And then now to top it all, we do the consultancy because you get we'll have run through each and every club and we have known what are the do's and don'ts about this particular business. Ya. So we can come, lift you up, tell you this is what you can do. So with COVID coming in, most of the clubs were out in terms of entertainment. Like, ya, ya, basically entertainment was Iliya Natchini. Akinu akinu apenda Shereya. Akinu akinu apenda Shereya. Akinu apenda Shereya. No, jo, meisha ningumu. Meisha ningumu. You have to find a way of just making sure that you're in good spirits, right? But responsibly. Yes, responsibly. Ya. So when COVID came and took me particular restrictions and stuff, how is it that you as Bodger Entertainment making sure that when people go have a good time, they are maintaining social distance and they are just making sure that we are safe as we are out here. Especially when it comes to clubs, what one is akwa? Waraudi.  Ya, sure, that's it. Muko tu palem kwengi. How do you manage that? Ya, with COVID everything, the tables turned and took affected. Ya. Ya, I think the first three months everything was just like, you know what? We're not going to come back. Ya. But when I take in time, we say we are adapting to the new culture of patting and one kiletuneza se mani we have to make sure that guys sanitize in the club and the social distance is usually maintained and also we get to educate people in this so that as you get to kwa klaba kuhu niwa lafu maybe you are talking then the next day you are come sick. Ya, okay. So we have to always to tell them like you know what you have to sanitize, you have to have your mask on and atokitoka kwa klaba then you have to know that dilikonama say so what should I do before I interact with the next party so that next time badu tunakunidu na piawewa tunidu so we have to always do that so that we keep going. Ya. But at the end of the day we have always to make sure that we educate them. That is the most Educating them about responsible. Ya, the responsibility about him or herself. Ya. Okay. What are some of the challenges that you've had working that that is a very complicated working space because you're dealing with so many people and it's tough like I can imagine how do you deal with some of the challenges that you come across in your line of work? It's very hard actually. Ya. The line of entertainment it's a hard one because when you have to please the DJs people like him you have to please them. Artist. Shulisao artist. Just in case there's an artist coming to play. Yes, you have to please them. You know you you'll get phone calls after phone calls. Ya, from the DJs. From the DJs from the artist. And we usually say that there are so many entities where you can play. But you see when you have a place where this is the place that everyone talks about. Ya. So these DJs they'll have to make sure that they play at this particular joint. So if he doesn't play then you are the blame that I didn't play there. Second is the directors themselves. You have to hit targets. Hours is money. Marketing is money. Entertainment is money. So if you don't hit the target then you go maybe you're not paid. You're out of air. You... It's just a hectic one. Ya. And by anything else is how you have to maintain your brand. If you say you're boja then you have to be boja. You have to be boja. Ya. Because when we say we want to bring the party to you then every day it has to be a party that will go away. Like you have to meet my expectations. Yes. If I am... Ninajuwa boja is the people handling this event. I know last time it was dope. Peer this time. I need it to be dope. Because if it's not I will move to the next people. Exactly. Right? Kwanda jima demu. Wah! Kwa DJ lewa wazi? A lewa akwa akwa jawezi. See, just have you of your power. You're like I'm not even in the service but it's just because they know you. Ya, we know you. So you are the face. Yes. So you just have to answer those questions but sometimes when I say manga what are you currently? Ya. So how do you deal with some of these things? Stealing with directors dealing with DJs dealing with clients dealing with artists How at whate? Ninajuwa... They're just self-employed people seem to manya ti ibo suwako. I mean when ibo suwake this is someone that you have to work under or something like that. How do you deal with these people? Okia mpa gasuboi kumu jambia watya si kuikui bilita taku. Ya. Because at the end of the day you are a human being.   Sijana kili kula. Ya. Keshupia leo sigi atu izikula kila sikula. Ya. Eh you just and you just have to have hope everyday that we gonna just make sure that everything goes smooth. You deal with one day at a time. Yes. Leo ni leo keshu ni keshu. Keshu ni keshu. Ya. So usidi piya pressure sana piya kwa life. No no kidi piya pressure na piya and the more you give yourself the pressure then you don't you forget about now tomorrow because the next day you have to party. You have to think of something that ours api yota. Ya. Wataku anapenda. So leo kifeyi le lafu anzekuji blame too much. Then tomorrow then you out of focus we talk out of the of the books. Ya. Is your line of work something that you encourage young people to take part in? Most definitely. Because there are people outside here I looked a point and I saw something. Ya. I saw something. No I tell people outside there kusumi amaketing. Miksumi amaketing. I'm a pure journalist. And when vidu zili tan then I saw opportunity. How to change ya. I saw opportunity and I said this is what I want. Na you grasp it and you make sure that it is you now because it can trade what you need. Job me design. Everyone goes you get all those degrees and then kuhua hoops kuhua hoops kuhua hoops in manzikashonita kwa siiwa pina kwa but it's not like that. Ni wei tu unaji unangaliya ikitun kidu kutaidu waji. Kus right now can tell you we have employed people. I have a small we pay them. We I feel like you know what there are people who go home happy. Ya. You know when social media came that is where work is. They are influencers. They are words. There are so many people. You just from that. From that ya. Because it is just a matter of buying bundles and being creative. What are you posting today? What time are you posting it? So if someone sees you posting Bodja entertainment they'll want to know what is Bodja entertainment. So we got new clients because of you.  Ya. You see. So it is something that I will encourage people. Don't kus ich kwa social media kukia kudis watu. Ya. Use it for something. For something. Ya. Use it for something. And Musema people talk about you on social media in terms of what you are posting today. It is your wild. That is your social media platform. So if you want to see it see it. If you don't want to see it then block me or mute me if you want. But at the end of the day if you go home happy at the end of the month you have some cash with you. You can pay your bills. You can pay your bills. Ya. Because we are seeing so many people earning money from this. From social media truly. So why we won't see kus ich kwa tuntat you are not doing. Ka kuna job. And you have followers I don't know 10,000 followers. You can get money from there. You can. Thank you. Ya. Thank you. So if someone wanted to work with Bodja Entertainment maybe clubs, brands how would they get to you? They go on social media page Bodja Entertainment Bodja underscore ENT Ya. Both on Instagram Facebook and Twitter. Ya. Okay. So thank you so much for coming through. Thank you so much. Unfortunately Masayitu Misha would have wanted us to speak a little more. But it's alright. So talk just going in a pair. So what's your name? Kwa social media? Naukuja. Tama kwa streets? Asi kwa streets. Streets are social media. Streets are social media. Anyway just as you've heard from Jared we're jitume u kuna simu apa kuna followers they is wakoba there usila lelale ibu are we together? We'll be back.


My fellow Americans, yesterday in Geneva, American negotiators presented to their Soviet counterparts new proposals designed to achieve real reductions in the nuclear arsenals of both the United States and the Soviet Union. My instructions are negotiators also ask that this round of the negotiations be extended in this coming week so that our team can make a full presentation of our new proposals and so that the Soviets have the opportunity to ask questions about them. I'm very pleased that the Soviet Union has agreed to this extension of the talks. I know you join me in hoping that this will be a productive week in Geneva. Our new proposals address all three areas of these negotiations. Strategic nuclear arms, intermediate-range nuclear forces, and defense and space systems. They build upon the concrete reduction proposals American negotiators have had on the table since early in the talks. And they take into account expressed Soviet concerns. Our objective since the start of the administration in 1981 has been to achieve real progress in reducing not only nuclear arms but conventional forces and chemical weapons as well. We have been firm and consistent in our arms control approach. Just as important, we've placed great value on maintaining the strength and unity of our alliances and ensuring that the security interests of our allies are enhanced in these negotiations. And we've demonstrated flexibility in taking legitimate Soviet interest into account. I'm pleased to report to you that our strategy has been working. I believe we've laid the groundwork for productive negotiations in Geneva. The first sign of this was when Soviet Foreign Minister Shevronatsy presented to me at our White House meeting in September a Soviet counteroffer to our own earlier proposals. The Soviet negotiators then presented this in detail in Geneva, and our negotiators and our experts here at home have had a chance to analyze it carefully. Based on this analysis, I decided upon the new U.S. proposals and instructed our negotiating team to present them in Geneva. Judged against our very careful criteria for reaching sound arms control agreements, we found that the Soviet counter proposal had some flaws and in some ways was one-sided. But as I made clear in my speech to the United Nations, the Soviet move also had certain positive seeds which we wished to nurture. Our new proposals build upon these positive elements. One of them is the Soviet call for 50% reductions in certain types of nuclear arms. For more than three years, we've been proposing a reduction of about half in the strategic ballistic missiles of both sides. We therefore have accepted the 50% reduction proposed by the Soviets. At the same time, we're making it clear that we have a safer and more stable world, and if we're to have that, reductions must be applied to systems which are comparable, and especially to those which would give either side a destabilizing first-strike advantage. We not only want to bring nuclear arms way down to equal levels in a stable way, we also want to decrease our mutual reliance for security on these extremely destructive offensive arsenals. Thus, we're seeking to discuss at the same time with the Soviets in Geneva how, together, we can try to help make the world a safer place by relying more on defenses which threaten no one rather than on these offensive arsenals. Each of us is pursuing research on such defenses, and we need to be talking to each other about it. I have written to both Allied leaders and Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev about our new proposals, and I have informed Mr. Gorbachev how much I'm looking forward to our meeting later this month in Geneva. He and I will have a broad agenda at our meeting, one that includes human rights, regional issues, and contacts between our peoples, as well as the Geneva and other arms control negotiations. If we hope to succeed in our efforts to create a safer world and to bring about a fresh start in the U.S.-Soviet relationship, progress will be needed in all of these areas, and this can only be accomplished if the Soviet leaders share our determination. We're encouraged because after a long wait, legitimate negotiations are underway. Now, we've had a proposal on the table in Geneva for quite a while. Now the Soviet Union has offered a counter-proposal, and we in turn have a new proposal now reflecting some of the elements of both of the others, and this is what negotiations is all about. I can't give you any more details about our new arms control proposals because we have to let the negotiators work this out behind closed doors in Geneva. But I want to leave you with the four key objectives our American negotiators are seeking. Deep cuts, no first strike advantages, defensive research because defense is much safer than offense and no cheating. Until next week, thanks for listening. God bless you.


From The Conversation, this is Don't Call Me Resilient. I'm Vinitha Srivastava. So this idea of resilience, we use that and they become trapped in that idea because they can come back. So there is that fear I have about resilience and not enabling the policies and processes we have to make the possible for them to be successful. In this episode, we're going to explore the impact of systemic racism within the school system. Even before COVID, education advocates were sounding the alarm about the future of racialized children in our schools. They said unequal education opportunities and deep-seated systemic racism were holding children back. Our guests today are longtime educators who say the pandemic has only deepened the divide. Carl James is a professor of education at York University and a former advisor to the Ontario Minister of Education. And Kulsum Anwar is a high school teacher who works out of one of Toronto's most marginalized neighborhoods. I spoke to them both at the start of the school year about the injustices within the education system and how we might make small changes that could have a rippling effect in our communities. So both of you, thank you so much for taking the time to talk about this very important issue. Carl James, in your last article, you wrote something for us, so you quoted some researchers that have called public schools racist sorting machines. What does this mean when you say racist sorting machines? We have to think of school as one of the major institutions that enables possibilities and opportunities for young people and for Canadians generally. So schools play a significant role. How race comes into this? Because I think race matters in our Canadian society and based on race, we have certain kinds of assumptions about the background of people who will do well and who will not do well, who have the possibilities of becoming a good student, a good math student, or who will be able to become the athlete in the school. And those kinds of things follow students and race is one of those factors that we might use in order to determine those possibilities. And therefore schools play a significant role. As we know it today, unless we change things, unless we start becoming much more equitable and pay attention to equity, then we are going to continue to sort it. So let me just pause for a minute because I feel like, well, you know, you said, well, we've got these systems in place in Canada, multiracial society, multicultural, everything. We're supposed to trust our institutions. And I mean, we have a teacher with us today. We're supposed to trust our teachers to treat all of our students equally and to equally help children move through the system.  What's your response to this? So as much as we want schools to be these equitable places, they absolutely aren't. And all of that sorting happens.  I teach English and it's a compulsory course. And I teach grade 12 University English, which is, you know, every student who wants to go to university has to take that course. And I can tell you very plainly that you won't see black students, particularly black male students in those courses. So we don't need any convincing about whether the schools are sorting or not. It's happening. For those of us who don't know or for folks who might be listening that don't know, can you describe your neighborhood for us, your community? Yeah. So Jane and Finch is probably the largest immigrant reception center you're going to find in maybe Canada. So there's a lot of diversity here, a lot of new Canadians. And it's very racialized to the point where our school has very few white students. I would say the demographics are the biggest group would be black. We have Guyanese students, Vietnamese students, very multiracial. But it is a low income community. And it's grappled with negative perceptions that come along with societies disdain for the economically and racially marginalized. What could we say to somebody who says, for example, well, this is not the school's fault. The schools are not the sorting machines. It is economics and it is just society. Kids are already sorted before they come to school. Of course, it's not just school. What is the message that that child at age four of three is getting from the larger society? How do the media present the images of racialized people? In all this discussion of COVID, for example, do we present black people as being experts in the medical area to talk to one of the issues? Do we present racialized professionals or indigenous professionals as being able to tell us how to work with our children in the school system? So it's not just the parents or the school, it's the society. And the more we can start thinking about the system and not just the school, but the school in relation to the media, in relation to politicians and the policies they make in relation to the justice system, if we see all this and we think that children are not just getting messages from school, we can do our best in schools to make the child feel welcome and inclusive, et cetera, et cetera. But when that child goes into the larger society and what the messages they're getting in school is now reinforced, then the teacher might become suspect and especially if it's a racialized teacher, it might be all about the teacher and not about reality. So yes, we have to think of it's more than school. So I agree with you. At the same time, though, the school become complicit insofar it doesn't challenge that which is the child is getting from the larger society. We've had some worldwide protests against systemic racism. And in response, I would say we've had some changes here in Ontario and in Canada, local school boards are starting to realize that they may need to run some anti-racism education. Kulsum, how is that going? Change is supposed to be coming. So how is that change going? Yeah, I mean, certainly there's been response to the recent global protests, but efforts at equity and anti-racism training have been going on for years. I've been teaching for almost 15 years and it's remarkable how little has changed in those 15 years. Professional development that's focused on equity continues to be really tense. There's a lot of teachers who are on board and really seeking to learn, but there's a lot of resistance as well. And we continue to hear from teachers who are certain that all they are doing is making objective decisions about the ability of the child and that they do not see color and that these issues are not systemic. Because if you admit to a systemic oppressions, first of all, it's really uncomfortable to realize that we represent the system that does these things. It also means that we have to confront privilege we may have. It means that our understanding of our self may not include our sense of our own biases, so it's uncomfortable. So there's a lot of resistance and that does impact students. So on a personal level for you as a racialized teacher, do you find these helpful? Do you find maybe not on a systemic level, but say in your own school, do you find that these anti-racist trainings, do you find them helpful? I see some progress. I think they're necessary. I don't think that they are not any kind of panacea. They don't instantly work, but there's going to be no progress if we don't have these conversations. And I've seen some progress and also very little progress. I don't know if that makes sense, but it's both. I agree that there's some progress. But I'm not a fan of training on one level. Having the conversation, as Colesum said, is absolutely, absolutely critical. And all of us, even the racialized teacher and the black teacher, all part of a system that he or she has to implement, the testing, etc. So we're all a part of this. And therefore we have to constantly remind ourselves that on one hand, we're having to challenge inequity at the same time we produce that inequity. But it's for us to think how we're going to try not to reproduce that inequity. And that's work. That's work for all teachers and for racialized teachers as well. But training though, sometimes I feel training puts the issue in, is the teacher not teaching good enough, is the curriculum, it's about the teacher. And yes, the teacher is implicated in it. But it's more the system, how the curriculum has been set and how it reproduces inequity, how the system of grading that comes from above, how the EQA that we expect students to respond to. If we don't spend the time looking at that and paying attention to that, but just talking about our individual attitude and racism is reproducing this thing, then we're not going to go anywhere. And if we get people to think about, it's about them. And then people might spend their time trying to shield themselves from that which they have been living with. And therefore never get to the system looking at the policies, the program and the legislation that reproduces the system. So Carl, I mean, I hear what you're saying. You're calling for wholesale change. So I'm wondering, it's taken us so long to get to this point. So how do we start to undo this? I think the conversations as comes from said that we all have to have. Within that conversation, we have to also think about how we are all implicated in a system of inequity. I always think that it's not just an English teacher that brings biases to the work that he or she does. It's not just the social science teacher, etc., etc. It's not just a sociology teacher that has these biases. None of these are neutral. Science also has all these biases that bring. Let's admit that these structures inform the very questions that we ask, the references we make, or the examples we bring up in our curriculum. That has something to do with the experiences that as a person, you bring to teaching, you bring to the understanding. And that's what needs to happen. How we are all informed by an institution that's informed by the society that produce certain kinds of ideas that we have and we work with. All right, Carl, I keep thinking about what you're saying, that you don't think anti-racist training works. But in some ways, what we're hearing from Kulsom on the ground is that the teachers, even in early education years, are streaming students, like as early as kindergarten. How do you think parents can help? Parents can, especially privileged parents, like I am, like we are, we need to, as parents, support diverse multicultural neighborhood schools. We need to divest from optional attendance. We need to stop shopping for high schools that are going to position our children in a way that's going to enrich them somehow. We should be supporting public education for all, a standard of education that is uniform for all. I know these specialized programs in high schools are really popular with parents. And I'm a parent, they seem attractive. It's going to expose my child, prepare my child for a particular career or open their horizons. But what happens is a lot of schools are abandoned and streamed because you have the, quote, unquote, strongest students leaving the neighborhood. No, I mean, that's a very interesting. What you're saying is this idea of strongest children leaving the neighborhood, right? That's the system of the charter system in the US or the, you know, you get those special tickets to get out of your neighborhood to go into a different school. Yes, that happens in our neighborhood. All the same. Right. Yeah, I, and how this is a really challenging question to me too, because I'm also a parent and the question really is how can we convince ourselves that, you know, how can we convince each other to participate in this and what you're saying, which is support public education, but also to start thinking more collectively. You know, I always remember having this discussion with a colleague in Sweden. And she said to me, you know, this is not a dress rehearsal for my child. This is it. So no matter what we want our children in those communities, in those schools getting the kind of education that will enable that child to live the fullest life possible to realize their potential and for us as parents to work and do the best and expect the best for our children. What we can do then is expect and think that all parents would want the same thing for their children. All parents are working to do that exact thing for their children and they're just like me. Now, then we have to look at our privilege. Of course, we're not going to want to send our children to a school that would not have the best science lab, the best gym, the best opportunities. We're going to want that for our children. Therefore, we should also think that those parents on the road want the same thing. And therefore, we're going to have to do some work with convincing education administrators, the policymakers, the politicians. We're going to have to do the work to enforce that university people as well become employed and make this a bigger issue and not just simply my child. And so we can only do what we can because we want the best for our children. But we can insist that the system, as it is, respond to everyone in a way that helps all children to maximize their potential. And I would argue that that is in the best interest of our children. You know, when we support a system that is equitable and there's high expectations for all, that serves our children, too, and the society that they're going to go on to be part of. Absolutely. I like the idea itself, the society. Because if all children are able to realize their potential, and you can imagine how much money we would not have to put in prisons, how much money we would not have to put into the health care system because of the mental illness, because of not being able to understand the appropriate use of medicine. So all of us benefit because we can now live the lives where we do not have to think about fear. We do not have to think of security because everybody is realizing the kinds of opportunities and potentials that they have. Everybody benefits. I mean, Carl, you've been talking about this for at least 20 years. You talked about the Stephen Lewis report. You said that, you know, there's been report after report that has indicated the same thing, including many of your own reports that you've written, that these schools are anti-black, they're anti-indigenous, they're systemically racist. And what I'm wondering is what, of all the 20 years we've been talking about, we have reached this crisis, now we're in the middle of COVID-19, which just simply exacerbates all of these things that you've been reading about and talking about and called Zoom for you, living it day to day. We've reached the red alert and urgent situation now and we all want the same thing for our children. What are some of the things that we can do now to start pushing this ideal that you speak about? I'm thinking here of COVID that has exacerbated the problem. And children are not going to go to school. Some children are going to stay home. We know that certain groups of parents will be able to hire a teacher to spend five hours with their children and bring the lessons to them and those children can advance. And I keep thinking about the last six months or five months of children have not been having the necessary support or education possible. And we know that researchers shows that some students, especially students from lower income households, after the summer they fall back in the education of what's going on.  And how do you tell the parents not to hire the teacher that advances children? And what do we do for those students who are not going to advance? And if we have not been paying attention to equity or really doing the job that we need with those students who need the extra support all along, what's going to happen after COVID? And how do you feel about this, Kulsum? How do you keep your own, we talked about the sphere of influence. You said you had a little, how do you keep it up?  You grew up in this neighborhood, you teach in this neighborhood. The way to keep going is, as you say, is to recognize that you have impact every day. And I would say that teachers in neighborhoods like ours have more influence and power in the lives of students and in more privileged neighborhoods. And what that means is, you know, you can have a greater impact with your, you know, your commitment to students and commitment to high expectations for those students. So, you know, obviously with COVID, all of the inequities that were already in place are just going to be exacerbated by the issues that Carl just talked about. The way to deal with that is certainly to show up and it's also to examine what you're doing because a lot of, you know, the standards that we're so desperate for these students to meet, some of those standards are just problematic in the first place. So, you know, we need to question everything we're doing to be an anti-racist educator, to be the educator we need at this moment is to be never complacent and just really, really questioning the way we're doing things. We should be, you know, we should embrace the discomfort and, you know, just be uncomfortable because things are uncomfortable, our students are uncomfortable. I like the point that some of this has to do with uncomfortability that we're going to have to work with and I would add to what Kulsumja said, it's not just the high school teacher and the high school students and the whole area of high school. What the university is doing, you know, to also change the context, the messages that go in our, about possibilities for students. Who are the students who are getting into university and how university enabling their success as well. So it's, we have to think about this at all levels of the education system. Carl, I'm so curious. You've been doing this for a long time and education is absolutely the idea of education as an equalizer in society is, it's very clear that you're very passionate about it. I'm wondering, how do you keep yourself going? You know, and how, yeah. Go ahead. Hope becomes cruel if we do not also think about how these things that we construct as hope also have some built-in inequities that might make it difficult us to traverse. And so I am holding on to that idea of thinking about the possibilities, but at the same time, don't want to see how the hope can be cruel without, without putting the structural changes in place to make whatever students have or what students want for their lives possible. I'm going to stop because that was just beautiful. It's what Carl was talking about with the cruelty of hope is very much in some ways what I was trying to say about this idea of stop calling me resilient, this idea that... You know, a recent study about black students talked about 93 or some high percentage of black students very early thought that they would want to go to university and only about 60 or 61% of them thought they would eventually get and get a university degree. For the rest of the population, about 80% of the 82 or 87% of them said they would go to university and 78% thought that they would actually do so, you know. So aspirations of the larger society of going to university was high and they eventually thought they would, but the black students did not have that possibility of going. And in that same report, we also talk about the resilience of black students, how much they all felt that they can come back after having difficulty, they can work hard, they can survive, they can... And so the resilience of black students was seen as much higher in the statistics called when they asked those questions of whites and others, they did not have as much quote-quote resilience as a black student. So this idea of resilience, this idea of being able to confront the issues and become better is something that is talked about for racialized students and minoritized students and others. But we use that and they become trapped in that idea of their resilience because they can come back no matter what we do. So the system never moves to make possibilities because the system can remain the same and their resilience will be able to bring them back to what they were. And so there is that fear I have about resilience and the cruelty of thinking about that group as resilient and not enabling them, not enabling the policies and processes we have to change to make the possible for them to be successful. And so this is my fear about the trust of resilience. Sorry, the last thing that you said, the what, the trust of resilience or the trust of resilience? Yeah, the trust in, the trust, the thinking that resilient, you know, they're resilient so it will always come back and that's okay. Yeah, it will always be fine no matter what you throw at us. The poison water is fine, we'll just boil it. We're resilient. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. How about you, Colson, you wanted to say something about resilience too. Yeah, I would agree with Carl.  It's an attempt to absolve the system, absolve ourselves of responsibility. Yeah, and place the, you know, to reinvigorate the idea of meritocracy and that, you know, the students just try hard enough they can make it or they can make it, you know, in a way that's best for them. I hear a lot of like, well, you know, maybe, maybe the reason we don't see the representation is, you know, students, there's nothing wrong with the college stream. There's nothing wrong with the trades. And of course, those things are true. And when you bring up, there's not, nobody's ever said anything was wrong with any of those things, but it seems to be the right answer only for some children.  I agree. That's it for this episode of Don't Call Me Resilient. Thanks for listening. If you want to continue the conversation on education, hit me up on Twitter at rightvenita. That's W-R-I-T-E-V-I-N-I-T-A and at ConversationCA. And use the hashtag Don't Call Me Resilient. If you'd like to read more about systemic racism in education, go to theconversation.com. It's where you'll find our show notes with links to stories and research connected to our conversation with Carl James and Kulsum Anwar. Don't Call Me Resilient is a production of The Conversation Canada. This podcast was produced with a grant for journalism innovation from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The series is produced and hosted by me, Vinita Srivastava. Our producers are Nahid Buwi, Nihal Elhadi, and Vicky Mochama with additional editorial help from our intern, Ibrahim Dyer. Reza Dyer is our technical producer and sound guru. Anua Quarku is in charge of marketing and production design. Lisa Verano is our audience development editor and Scott White is the CEO of The Conversation Canada. Special thanks also to Jennifer Morose for her indispensable help on this project. And if you're wondering who wrote and performed the music we use on the pod, that's the amazing Zaki Ibrahim. The track is called Something in the Water. Thanks for listening everyone and hope you join us again. Until next time, I am Vinita and please don't call me resilient. I'm Vinita from Something in the Water.


a win like today against the Astros come from behind. How big of a win is that? Yeah, I think it's a big win because I think this is, you know, one of the better teams we face this year. And they, you know, you could tell they were coming at us with everything they had. So, you know, I think, you know, I don't think we played our best this series, but I think to split with them and, you know, to not play our best and to split, you know, I think we did enough to win two and just keep it rolling. I'm sure we'll have some more battles with them down the road. DJ, what do you feel like this weekend show you about how you stack up against them? I mean, they're a really good team, right? I mean, we've had a good start, but at the same time, I don't, we haven't done anything yet either. So, you know, we'll be watching them from afar and there's some other good teams too. But, you know, I think as long as we just focus on what we need to do, we'll be fine.


I have a very important video here today and I think this can be a big one for you. The idea in today's video, I'm going to put it like this. All negativity comes in pairs, we could say. Negative thoughts are always really two negative thoughts, okay? So that's the idea and I'm going to try and explain that and explain also what you can do with this idea and how it can be helpful. So maybe you watched some of my other videos but I talk about trauma and I talk about typically a split that takes place in our psyche and our consciousness typically leads to two opposing mindsets that we have, okay? And these are diametrically opposed to one another, they don't like each other very much. In terms of theory you could say that we develop a shadow, it's all the stuff we don't want to look at, the stuff we reject about ourselves and then there's this persona that we want to cultivate and we think is going to be acceptable to the outside world given that there's all this stuff that we're not going to look at and we certainly wouldn't let anyone else see, right? So the mind itself, if we're carrying some trauma, which in my view is a lot more people than maybe we would be comfortable to talk about, the mind itself is split and therefore every kind of problem or experience of negativity we have kind of has two components to it. It's never one component because the mind comes with two parts. So let me make it a bit more practical than this. Let's say you're looking at some of your negative beliefs or something and you find that, okay, what's the emotion I'm feeling here? I'm feeling depressed, I'm feeling a little bit hopeless, I'm kind of looking at my past and I'm not feeling too good about myself, I feel small, I feel powerless and what am I thinking? I'm thinking something like a universal thought would be, for instance, I'll never make enough money, okay? Now there's a lot of kind of feelings of smallness and unworthiness around this. So okay, that's clearly what we need to work on, right? So we work on that, we feel into that, we start to question it a little bit and we start to maybe even see, find a different way to look at that, let go of the old belief, I'll never make enough money, I'll never be good enough. No one will ever want me, any of these beliefs. And we find a new way to look at it and you know, that's a good thing. The only problem though is we've worked on one of the pair, right? One half of the issue. If we don't look at the other half also, what we're going to experience is the opposition in this case, in this example will be that what we just described there was very much so in the shadow. The shadow is all about the past, it's all about smallness and guilt and unworthiness. Persona is all about the future, it's all about how do you know you're in your persona? It's typically going to be any belief we'll start with, I need to, I have to, I should. It's all the solution to the problem that isn't looked at, okay? So if I'm seeing there's something wrong with me, I'm not good enough knowing whatever I want me. This part of my mind over here is at the same time telling me things I need to do to fix this problem that I don't want to look at. So I have to work harder, I have to do more, etc., etc., right? Now, we've just, in this example, we've questioned and we've found a new way to look at this hopelessness feeling, this unworthiness. But now you see even that's a good thing. I've worked on that, okay, I feel a bit less small, a little bit less unworthy, but now I start to feel a little bit anxious. Why am I feeling anxious? Because I haven't looked at this side of the equation yet. The question now, these beliefs that I have to go and do this and do that and be this person and achieve more here and do more there, okay, impress this person. So what we do is when we're trying, really what I'm kind of saying here is yes, the negativity comes as a pair. We want to start looking at the problems we experience as, okay, there's probably going to be two elements to this, at least two elements to it, right? But just for now, see it as two elements. And I'm going to start questioning both of these aspects. Quick side note, quick little note on this, the shadow stuff, the unworthiness stuff needs to be really questioned deeply and let go of because there's just no reality in it. The persona is more accurate to say, yes, we question it, but really what we're going to end up doing with this is reinterpreting it rather than letting it go. So for instance, if I'm talking about this idea of I should be more successful. If I drop that, I might go right back into depression because I kind of do want to be successful. The only problem is my definition of success over here is an unhealthy one. So when I reinterpret the persona, it's going to be much more about, yes, I do want to be successful. I can be successful. It just means something a little different now, something that doesn't involve me chasing after something externally all the time. Maybe it's a little bit more heart centered, for instance, okay? Maybe it honors what my values are a little bit more, but there's certainly no smallness in it or helplessness in it as I move towards whatever that is, that new definition. So I hope this is a useful concept. Any time you're working on either depression or smallness or unworthiness, you can also start to look at any feelings of anxiety. Depression and anxiety are really opposite sides of the same coin, okay? They're always kind of there together, just the way the persona and the shadow are always joined. They'll always be there, the bigger the shadow, the bigger the persona, right? So if we're questioning this future oriented persona that we're trying to develop, it's typically going to be working with a lot of anxiety or emptiness is another one. Another one is irritation, okay? There are others as well, but in the shadow it's going to be much more about depression, smallness, unworthiness, guilt, shame, anything like that. There can be rage in there too that we're not looking at, right? If we're repressing a lot of feelings, but it will show up as a mild irritation over here. There's a river of anger underneath that usually, but I'm getting off point here. The practical thing I want you to take away from this video is when you're looking at some of your emotions and you find maybe an emotion like a sadness or disappointment or a smallness or an unworthiness, really do some work on that, but then also do a little bit of work on this other part of the equation, right? Start to see it as, okay, if I can step back from both of these aspects, I start to dissolve the trauma that led to this split. I start to commit, I'm no longer yoyoing from shadow persona, shadow persona, feeding them both really. Now I'm stepping into a unified mindset and really that's much more about self-expression, self-acceptance, creativity even, but that's where you're living from your authentic personality, the personality you were born to be, not this fake personality that we're trying to, or somebody else's that we liked, and we're trying to emulate that personality. Your personality is perfectly fine, you know, if someone had to be you and it turns out it's you, and that's a good thing, right? I mean, someone has to be David, here I am, so we're trying to step more and more into our authentic personalities all the time, and to go after what it is that the heart really wants and desires for us in this life. So that's a little tip, and keep that in the back of your mind, and next time you're doing a little bit of journaling or inquiry into an emotion or a belief that you're going to contact with, and I hope that's maybe a game changer. Let me know what you think guys, and as always, I'm very grateful that you're here, and I'll see you again very soon in the next video. Bye for now.


We talked a lot at the beginning of the season about the process and really falling in love with that process and that's one thing that about swimming or any kind of individual sport is that if you can really love the process and do it to its full ability that at the end of the season it's gonna help out and no matter what happens during the season as long as you're still in love with that process that sets them up for success you know it's one of those things where it's either I lose or I it's either I win or I learn I never lose so as long as they are constantly trying to make themselves a little bit better they're they're learning something new about themselves and learning new barriers that they can break the goal specific goals that they've set for themselves again try and try to get a little bit better every single year trying to get back to where they once were I mean swimming is one of those things where you get so good and then you don't you kind of take could take a couple steps back but what I like to describe it to them as you know you're pulling back the slingshot you're taking two steps back you take one big step forward eventually so really it's just getting in the mindset of what we need to be at championships and being in that mindset every single day whether we're making gains or we're not making gains that we're in the mindset of championship mode all the time no Myla she's been great she's really stepped up in a great like captain leadership role the silent leaders are really our workhorses Stephen Kratzer and Bailey Hurt and actually the the dark horse this year is Matt Matt Myla's are he's just he's coming back after not swimming for two years and it's just gung-ho the whole way really trying to push himself to be a little bit better every day so watch out for our sophomores you know and I don't want to leave the juniors out but we have a underclassman class that's really motivated to carry on the legacy of our seniors and you know both the juniors and the sophomores are ready to take this team to the next level so we're all bought in ready to go and we're just trying to make the little tiny gains that we need to make to have a successful season for us


In the previous video, we have discussed about the business letter and the etiquette. In this session, we are going to discuss about the format writing. At the end of this session, student will be able to understand the format of business letter. A letter, whether it is long or short, it has to be planned before it is written. When writing a business letter, the writer produces one-sided conversation with the reader in the sense that he or she has to anticipate the reader's questions and provide answers to those questions. Now, first we will discuss about what is meant by business letter. Take a pause, think about the question and try to write the answer. A business letter is a letter written in formal language, usually used when writing from one business organization to another or correspondence between organizations and their customers, clients and other external parties. Now, it is very important to discuss about the purposes of the business letter. So, here are some of the purposes. The first purpose, it would be to inform about something. The second one is to congratulate on any success. Next is to inquire about something. Then to order about some material or any type of things. Then to request, to collect dues, to complain about something, to make an adjustment, to sell a product, service or skin. So, these all are the purposes behind writing any business letter. Now, let us see some common types of business letters. All these types are based on the purposes whatever we are writing the business letters. So, see the various types of business letters. First one, acceptance letter, then acknowledgement letter, adjustment letter, application letter, complain letter, then cover letter, enquiry letter, order letter, refusal letter, response letter and sells letter. These are some of the types of business letters. To write any type of business letter, follow these basic steps. It is very important to follow all these steps. The first step is identify your reader. Then establish your objective. Determine your scope. Organize your letter. It is very important to organize your letter. Then draft your letter. Draft your letter properly. Close your letter. Your letter, it should be end with a proper end or with a proper concluding. And the last one is review and revise your letter. So, all these things it is very necessary to keep in your mind while writing any business letter. Now, let us see the format or various styles of writing a business letter. Here are some of the styles. Block format, simplified or indent format, modified and semi-block format. So, all these types we will see in detail. The first is block. Each line of every part begins at the left margin. At least one line space between each part. It is a time saving method and beautiful to look at. It is also known as American style. Next is indent or simplified style. New paragraphs begin about 1.5 centimeters to the right of the left margin. This style is also known as hanging style. This method consumes a lot of time, looks shabby, therefore out of practice. This is very traditional type of style. That is why it is not used nowadays. And the last is semi-block or modified block, which is always used nowadays. Some parts are typed in block method and other parts are indented. Written address, date, closing and signature start just to the right of the center of the page or maybe flush with the right margin. Most widely followed method in our country, specially in government offices. This style is accepted by Microsoft and we Indians have also accepted this style. This is a general later layout of styles. Semi-block style, this is a format. Then modified block style and block style. We can understand the differences between these formats. These are some of the examples of writing a later. That block style, see in this block style, everything is flushed on the left margin. In modified block style, only the sender's address and signature, it is on the right side. Otherwise, everything is on the left side. In Indian style, the sender's address and signature is also on the right side. And otherwise, everything is flushed on the left. See the difference between modified block style and Indian style. In modified block style, whenever we start the paragraph, it should start with a left margin. But in Indian style, whenever we start the paragraph, we leave some space. So, this is the main difference between these two styles. This is block style later sample. See sender's address, date line. Then to whom you are writing the later, that address, salutation, main body and the concluding part. Everything is flushed on the left margin. Everything flushed to left margin with no indents. This is modified block style later format sample. In this format, this sender's address and the signature line is on right side. Whatever the other part is flushed on the left margin. Paragraphs are not indented. However, these parts of the later are centered. The sender's return address, date later return, complimentary closing and sender's signature title. Signature or title. So, this is a modified block style later format. Read this sample business later. This is an application later. In this format also, I have emphasized on the format. See the sender's return address is on right side. Inside address is on left and complimentary closing and sender's signature is on right side. This is a modified block style, contained format. Each paragraph in the business later should contain different topic. The first paragraph should grab attention and state the reason for the later. The middle paragraph should support your reason and go into details. In the final paragraph, as professional etiquette for the writer, to thank the reader for taking his or her time to read the later. The end of a business later marks the biggest difference between business and personal later. The ending of business later usually states sincerely followed by writer's signature and name. The general statement about business later. Business later required in many different situations like applying for job, requesting or delivering information. Writing for business should be crisp and succinct. It should be to the point specific and accurate. Your writing must adhere to conversations of standard American English. So here are some references, whatever I have used for making the PPD. Thank you.


You know, we know that when we get our victories on our travels, there's a certain mentality and a certain edge about the way we play. And that'll have to be the same with the weekend, and I quite like Steve McLaren's quotes the other week after his team beat Liverpool on this end. The only way we can win is when the team are practically calling for the pitch. And obviously what he meant by that is when the players have given absolutely everything, every single one of them, and I've said it many times that that's how you get wins in English football, but it's a division so tight, we really need that, the effort and the desire, and when our supporters leave the ground at five o'clock on Saturday, they've got to have seen a really committed display from us, every single one of us, and if they've seen that, we'll give ourselves a great chance of winning.