So this farm guys is absolutely incredible for solo players, but even so if you're in a group it'll be equally if not better. It requires you to run around a bay type area, track the attention of enemies, group them up and slay them. In doing so you will earn absolutely tons of XP. Today I explain all. How's it going guys my name is DPJ and if you enjoyed the video leaving a like really helps out and if you like what you see and want to see more be sure to subscribe. So this farm was sent to me by my pal undescored but the original uploader to youtube of this method is Crocodile whose channel you'll find linked below. This is an absolutely incredible spot so again credit to Crocodile for this find. Okay so this takes part in the Cutlass Keys area as you can see me at on the map right here.  The campfire is just to quickly respawn back here. So once that fire is down run as I do as you can see on the screen now. I'm a level 30 doing this by the way.  So do what you can do with your build to either give yourself extra shielding, invulnerability, etc etc you know it goes. It really does help but also helps if you have an air of effect damage output to hit multiple enemies at the same time this helps tons as well. Doing this in a group will obviously make it much much easier but I was doing it solo and it wasn't too hard at all and I did die but it was no problem at all because I'll still earn an XP. I mean when I grouped like 20 enemies I'll kill like 15 to 18 of them and probably die to the last couple which is fine I still earn tons of XP from that. So you will see me do this on screen now. I'm following this same route then I just jump and lead them down to here. I turn on them and slay away. Now you can attract more enemies doing this but when I was doing it some of the others stopped following so I feel this is about the right balance of enemies right here plus it's super efficient in killing them. So once you have done that and killed them run back to that campfire. Rest to regen health start the route again it is that simple. Now like I said if you die it's fine because you won't lose XP nor will you lose that loot so you can quickly just run back here grab what you missed and yes this is amazing for sure. Every run I was getting between five six seven hundred XP sometimes more and it takes literally a minute to do this so what's that around 45 to 50k XP per hour which is absolutely amazing. Again you can get more enemies to follow you and be even more efficient than me and if you're in a team I'm certain you'll get probably closer to 70k XP per hour. So yes guys enjoy this amazing farm again credit to Crocodile for this and well that is it the end of the video is here. If it helps you out leaving a like really helps me out if you're new around here want to see more be sure to subscribe and if you never want to miss a video I upload content notifications on by hitting that bell button because thanks as always for stopping by and hopefully I'll see you on that next one


Although I've just begun reading the book, I came across something that I thought was profound and wanted to share it with you in hopes that you'll benefit as much from the meditation on these topics as I have. After reading part of the first chapter, I decided to jot some of my thoughts down and somewhat of a paraphrase of some of the key points that I took away from the book. A paradox lives among us, and I want to begin to show you what this paradox is and what the book highlights as an important paradox that we should be aware of. You see the world thought that with more stuff, with better self-esteem, with more success, with easier living, at least in Western culture, that they'd be happier, that they'd be fulfilled, that they would find meaning, that they would cling on to purpose. But the paradox is that though life seems to be getting better in many regards in Western culture, we don't feel that way. In fact, we feel more depressed than ever. We feel sadder than ever. Emptiness is a very, very common occurrence within lives of people that are just searching for meaning. Stuff won't fulfill that longing for something more. You see, we encounter this paradox, it confuses and perplexes us. We ask, wait, we're getting all this stuff, we're having more success, life is easier, we're comfortable, and yet this meaning and purpose that our heart and soul still desires is still a ways off. We're still reaching at something and we can't figure it out. Why is this this way? Why is it like this? Why is life like this? We do all we can to make life work, and we hope that it'll work out and that we will find meaning and find purpose. And yet, many are left empty. This paradox seems to taunt us on the daily. On page 22 and 23 Wells in his book, God and the Whirlwind points out the implications of this paradox on the younger generation. Many therapists are now finding that this paradox has worked its way into the lives of those who come to see them. Among those are many who are younger. They often report that though they grew up in good homes, had all they wanted, went to college, perhaps entered the workplace, they are nevertheless baffled by the emptiness they feel. This paradox has severe implications on our lives. We try to make life work, we try to do all we can to have successful lives, comfortable lives, meaningful lives. And yet, we're left with nothing. We're left searching at something more. Something that moves beyond the temporary to the permanent. Something that moves from a mere moment to the transcendent. We look for meaning, and yet we can't find it. We ask who can reach into this void? Who can help us find clarity in this? Who can help us find hope in what seems to be a hopeless situation? We're looking for someone to speak into the paradox. Jesus spoke into this paradox in John 14 verse 5 to 6. Thomas said to him, Lord, we do not know where you are going. So how can we know the way? Jesus answered, I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. When Jesus spoke, he pointed people to himself. He spoke of clarity, not confusion, of hope into a hopelessness that was so imminent. You see, when we wrestle with this paradox, at some point we are forced to look outside ourselves for answers. Because all we came up with was to do more, to try harder, to get more stuff, to get more selfish fulfillment, and yet we're left empty, so we're forced to look on the outside. And Jesus in the scriptures pointed to himself, look at me. And as Christians we are called to call others, to look outside themselves for the answers and point them to the way, the truth and the life. You see, when you wrestle with this paradox, you understand how inept you are at actually conjuring up this meaning that you're looking for, this purpose you're looking for. Because we come up short on every level. We cannot do it. We're looking for something transcendent and the only way to find that thing that we're looking for is to look outside of ourselves and look to Christ. You see, this is our calling. Just as Jesus spoke into this paradox, we also are called to speak into this paradox. There are so many people in our communities, even in our churches, in our families that are asking questions. They're wrestling with this paradox that they try their best and yet they're left empty. That they look for more things to fill themselves and yet they're lacking fulfillment. That they try to ease this guilt in their soul and yet they still feel guilty. Where can we find answers? Where can we find hope? And that's our calling as Christians to speak into this paradox, to bring truth and light into this question and direct people towards Jesus. You see, this is our calling to speak truth and life into the world, telling people to be born again, to show them where their guilty soul can be pardoned and where they can find true and lasting and transcendent hope, meaning and purpose. Are you going to point people into the direction of the only person that can satisfy their soul? The answer is yours, but your calling is clear.


I'm so happy to be introducing this next talk and the next speaker. The next talk is something so close to me as a feminist. It is about major internet platforms deciding what we can and cannot see. And it's about how we can take back power as users and do certain interventions that can help us fight for our rights. It's called should I stay or should I go. And it's by the amazing Gillian C. York. Gillian works for EFF. She mainly works on censorship at quasi public platforms and lives in Berlin. Over to you. Thank you. Hello, everyone. Thank you. Oh, you guys are so nice. Cool. So I am talking about this idea of should I stay or should I go. And in fact, at the end, I might even ask you to take a vote, whether I should stay or go. Because I've been, if you've seen any of my talks, you know that if there's one thing that I hate, it's the idea that these authoritarian private companies get to decide what we see and what we can say. And this is what I've been working on for the past seven or eight years. And I'm still fighting it. And it's not really changing. So I'm going to invite you to join me in this fight. So I've started with a meme, might be familiar to you. One does not simply quit Facebook, because it's true. And this is what I want to start addressing right now. Over the years, I've gone to so many events where I've spoken about this idea of whether we should quit Facebook, try to reform it, whatever. And there are two responses that I get from the audience.  This could be you. The first one is, well, if you don't like it, why don't you just leave?   And I want to give it its due. But the second one is, well, why don't we just build decentralized networks instead? And I don't think that's a bad idea. Don't get me wrong. I'm not here to rail against decentralization. But it's not a solution for everyone. And that's the other thing that I want to talk about, and why. But first, let's start here. So this is a sticker that you'll see on people's laptops and stuck everywhere from the folks at La Quadrilla du Net. And I generally agree with it. I love this sticker when I first saw it. I have one on my own, one of my machines anyway. Do not feed the Google. And then at the bottom, it says, decentralize all data and communications, software, Libra, N10 encryption. Now, that's a message that I can get behind, except for the part where it says all communications. Because I don't think that we should decentralize all communications. I'll get there in just a second. I just want to show you some funny memes first, if that's OK.  Now, this talk is not just about Facebook. Hi, my friends at Facebook, if you're listening to the live stream, it's not just about Facebook. It's about Google and Instagram and Facebook and Twitter and all of these intermediary quasi-public spaces that we use every day and why they're so problematic. But I'm going to focus on Facebook because it's a case study. And because I just spend a lot of time researching it. So again, really popular memes all over the internet. I like this one. This is actually the Google result for when you search for a meme about quitting Facebook. There are so many that I couldn't even choose. I wanted to just spend my whole time sharing them all with you. But the truth is that in practice, it's difficult to quit Facebook. I've talked to a lot of people. Actually, let me just ask. How many people here raise your hand if you use Facebook still? That's a lot. OK, good. Good. So you know what I'm talking about? It's hard to leave. I'll tell you why I don't leave. I don't leave for two reasons. One, because I like to party. And you know where the party invites happen? Facebook. Nobody invites you if you're not on Facebook. Just ask me. I don't invite people who aren't on Facebook anymore because I'm lazy. So that's one, laziness. Number two, the other reason I don't leave? I have lived in three or four countries at this point. I have been to more than 50 countries. I spend a lot of my time traveling and meeting new people. And what's the easiest way to keep them all in one place? Facebook. But of course, I'm not suggesting that we all stay on Facebook. To be clear, I don't work for Facebook. I don't even think they like me very much at this point. But I'm not here to say stay on Facebook, but I am here to say that Facebook is here to stay. And because of that, we need to start working toward these things and thinking about reasonable options rather than just saying to users that they should leave. Because if we do that, then we're leaving them behind. And we're not offering them a reasonable replacement for when they do leave Facebook. The second point is, who's to say that the next alternative won't be even worse? So let me talk you through some of the problems that I've seen. Maybe you'll agree with some of them, maybe not all of them. And then I want you to help me answer this question. So first point, decentralization. What about it? Oh, there we go. So what about decentralization? Now, I'm guessing that I'm not talking to people who have never heard of this concept. I'm guessing most of you are aware of the idea of decentralized social networks and perhaps on board with the concept. And again, I want to say I'm on board with it too, but just not as a full replacement for the existing centralized social networks that we have. So we've got the pros, you get better ownership and control over your data, potentially more privacy depending on who and how your social network is being run. You can have more authenticity and verification by using blockchain in your social network and have potentially better security, again, depending on who's running your decentralized social network. And of course, potentially greater freedom of expression. You could also have the opposite, but we'll save that for another day. But then for the average user, I think the struggle's real. Decentralized social networks are not easy. They're not easy to run. If they're using blockchain, they're not very environmentally friendly, and that's another conversation too, but ask me later if you don't know what I mean. And the barrier to entry for many users is really high. When I've talked to some of my friends who are not technologists, I'm not a technologist either, but not technologists, not part of this culture, they don't know what I mean. And then I realize that I'm inept at trying to explain to them in terms that they understand what a decentralized network even is. So if we can't get past that step yet, we've already failed. Now that's not to say we shouldn't keep building. And again, I'm going to encourage you to do that, build better, build smarter, and build so that more average users can join you. But the point of it all to me is that there are setbacks, there are negatives to this idea. And I think that that's where I can remind you that we're also, we're not the average user. Me, you, we're not the average user. So let's look at who they are. So Facebook right now has more than 1.2 billion daily active users. YouTube has more than 1 billion users in total, and Twitter boasts 313 million monthly active users. That's a lot of people. And I'm guessing there's a lot of overlap in these statistics. Now I'm wondering, do these numbers remind you of anything? Kind of, yeah, pretty much. Those numbers almost just about match up with the populations of China, India, and the United States. I'll just flip back and forth again so you can see that. 1.28, 1 billion, 313 million. And there you go. So these companies and their user populations have gotten as big as three of the world's biggest countries. That's how many people we're talking about. So when we say if you don't like it, just leave, we're forgetting about all of the people who have nothing to do with these communities, who don't know what the word decentralization means, who don't even necessarily know what centralization means, who are then telling them, oh, just leave. Oh, come join this. Oh, this is better. And it may be better. But it also, I think this is where we need to consider the role that we play in the fact that we might be the elites on that one. So a reminder, we're not the average user, and I believe that we have the responsibility to fix institutions, as they may be, that most of the public relies on. So I wanna talk through some of the problems, and here's where I'm gonna go right straight back to Facebook. So what are the issues with Facebook? Again, a lot of you are on it. How many of you are on it but frustrated with it? Okay, so you'll feel me in this next slide. So first, let's talk a little about algorithms since they're in the title of my talk. So first, this is a great quote from Zaynep Tifekshi, it was from a New York Times piece. Software giants would like us to believe that their algorithms are objective and neutral, so they can avoid responsibility for their enormous power as gatekeepers while maintaining as large an audience as possible. This is absolutely true. Number one, these companies, what's their primary motive? Money, profit, exactly. So your Facebooks, your Googles, your Twitters, whatever human rights language they use, whatever lofty missions that they have about wanting to connect the world and make it a better place, ultimately, their real motivator is their bottom line. And so as they implement these things, they're trying to bring costs down, bring revenue up. And so as they apply algorithms to these decisions, they're doing it with money in mind, not with you in mind. We'll talk about some of the examples of how they've misused algorithms, but I think that this is really important and the part that I think is really important is this idea of software giants and sometimes developers liking us to believe that algorithms are objective and neutral. I wanna challenge that idea entirely.   That's it, bias isn't inherently negative and we can also bring positive biases into that. I'm gonna come back to that a little bit. While we're talking about algorithms, I realize that there are two much smarter people on this subject giving talks tomorrow. I'm just gonna leave that up while I continue. You should make a note of these two talks, very good ones, on algorithms. So what are some of the ways that algorithms are being used by companies like Facebook? First, you've got your feed. This is what Claudio's talk is about tomorrow. He's presenting a project called Facebook Tracking Exposed about what Facebook's actually presenting to you in your feed, as well as some other stuff.  Now, there's been some really interesting studies done on this, particularly around things like positive messaging versus negative messaging. In fact, some fairly terrifying and academic studies that probably shouldn't have passed the IRB. But you're also getting what Facebook thinks is important in the world at the time. So last year, during the elections in the United States, a lot of conservatives were really angry because they felt that Facebook was censoring conservative news and that's not really true. So that was actually a manually done thing. But the fact is that Facebook does add values to different types of content. This one's more important. This one's less important. A baby photo from someone who just had a child probably almost always shows up in your feed. If your friend just had a baby, you're gonna know about it. If they just had a birthday, you might know about it. And if they're sad, you probably are less likely to know about it. So there are all of these different ways that your feed is manipulated. Then on the other hand, you have the ways in which your content is actually manipulated after the fact. So the way that these companies conduct censorship, and again, more detail in the policy in just a minute, but the way that they conduct censorship is twofold. One is this concept of community policing or snitching. And the other one is through the use of algorithms to either identify or identify and take down content. And we're starting to see this more and more.  That's how they phrased it. They say that algorithms are better, or their algorithms are better at identifying terrorist content than humans are, which I find really surprising and not true at all. But those are just two of the ways that they're being used. And we also see them being used in backend programming decisions. So I'm just gonna skip ahead so that I don't go over time. So then let's look at the policy just a little bit. This is Facebook's stated mission. Their mission is to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected, and make money, of course. But when we look at the way that these policies and these mission statements are crafted, we also have to look at who is crafting them. Just like when we look at who's building the AI algorithms, who's building the code that gives you your Facebook feed or that decides what's taken down, these are all areas of human input. These are all people who are bringing their own history and their own biases to the table when they do this. And so who are Facebook's top executives? Well, I can tell you that five of them studied at Harvard, four of them went to law school, and no, sorry, all but one of them went to law school, four of them went to elite institutions for both undergraduate and graduate degrees, and all but one of them are white. That's fun and really interesting and also an extraordinary lack of diversity. I'll get back to that. So let's just give one example of a policy. I'm sorry that this came out so ugly, it's my fault. So Facebook's community standards are their non-legalese document that decides what you can and cannot say, and that was crafted by that group of elites that I just mentioned. But they've gotten so complicated that Facebook actually has started issuing repeated clarifying documents to explain their policies over and over again. And why is that happening? Well, because frankly, it's one group of people in one board room making these decisions without any real input from the public. So just to give you an example, this is their nudity policy, and here's the second part of it. I'm gonna leave that up for just a second so you can try to read it, but tell me that this company is not tying itself in knots, trying to explain, oh, this is okay, you can have like a little bit of side boob, but no butt, and you can't have this, and you can't have that. They're getting really complex in trying to explain a really simple concept. And so I think we need to think about how ridiculous these policies are and what we can do about them as well. And well, why are things this way? Part of me feels that it's because of the lack of diversity at the top of these companies. Some of you may have seen today, Google, there was a document that came out of Google from a Google employee. It was leaked to Gizmodo, and it was this Google employee's 10-page rant about how their diversity hiring practices are bad and how we shouldn't focus so much on making sure that we have women and minorities because it's really about thought diversity and blah, blah, blah, no it isn't. Like I said, we bring our experiences to the table, whether we're putting them into code or into policy or into writing. We bring our human experiences to the table and that's why diversity is important. Also, this whole idea that diversity of thought is more important and this has been popularized by a Facebook board member, Peter Thiel, who actually says that diversity of thought is much more important than other kinds of diversity. But he's one of Facebook's, you know, all members of the all white board of directors. I'm sure that there's lots of diversity of thought at Harvard Law School, but I think that that diversity of thought really comes from our backgrounds. And so having a diverse group of people in appearance is also about diversity of thought and that's something that we forget when we try to make these into a binary. So if you can't read those numbers by the way, that's 35% women at Facebook overall, 65% men. But then when you talk about tech jobs and who's actually programming, it goes to 19% women and 81% men. Feel free to raise your hand if you think that those are acceptable numbers. But we can talk about that after. I will look forward to fiercely debating it with all of you. And it's not just about gender, it's also about a lot of other things. Facebook's employees in the United States, the United States is about 13% black, just census statistics, I didn't make them up. Facebook's employees are only 3% black. The US population, Hispanic population, again, census data, about 20%. Facebook's 5%. These numbers don't reflect reality in society. This, a little bit too, is who's making the decisions about what we can see. Now, some of it, like I said, is algorithmic. Algorithms might be identifying these content and telling people to take it down, telling the centralized workers to do this. But who are the people who actually make that final call? It looks something like this. They're contract workers. They get paid about $10 to $15 an hour. They're usually in places like the Philippines. They don't have full benefits or full psychological assistance. And they're not always really well trained to do this. So in the debate between what's better, an algorithm or a human being, consider these facts as well. Another point of that to me is that this is actually a labor and a human rights issue as well. Why should someone else have to see the beheading video and take it down so that you don't have to? We're talking about a real disparity and privilege here in that, oh, I don't wanna see these things in my feed, whether it's nudity or sexuality or beheading video. So let's pay somebody in the Philippines to look at it for me. So how does this work exactly? How well is it working, this whole content moderation problem? So like I said, Google says that AI is better than humans. It's scrubbing extremist YouTube content. And I say, show me the results. But the implementation of these policies overall is pretty bad. In this case, we have an example where Facebook has been repeatedly taking down the use of the word dyke, which as some of you may know is a word that lesbians reclaimed quite a long time ago and used freely amongst themselves and with others much of the time. And that using that word is not inherently bad, just like using most words is not inherently bad. But Facebook has repeatedly made this mistake in their content moderation by actually censoring people who are engaged in either counter speech or reclaimed speech. And here's just another example of that. In this case, somebody had posted a death threat to Facebook that they had gotten something, a letter. She wrote out the text of the letter and explained, you know, somebody called my children this. And Facebook took that content down and suspended her because she had shared horrible speech that someone else had said.  We do know that both are pretty bad at it and that there are ways that we can improve that and get to that in just a second. I'm running out of time here. We do know that, but we don't know whether in this particular situation, whether it was an algorithm that failed to identify the context around her use of this word or whether it was a human being that failed to identify the context around the use of this word. But I guess I would ask at this point, do we really want these authoritarian companies making these decisions for us at all? And if so, or if we can't change that, then what can we change? I see this as kind of a classic dilemma. Do we tear down old institutions? And somebody laughed at me earlier for calling Facebook an old institution. I know, I know it's only like 12, 13 years old. But at this point, it is the most robust, biggest, oldest social network that, well, biggest and oldest together, let's say. So it's a classic dilemma. Do we tear it down or start fresh or do we build new institutions? Or can we do both? And I think that that's what I was trying to get earlier, I'm not here to discourage anyone from building alternative platforms or social networks or whatever you want to call them. I think the more, the better. But at the same time, I think that we have to remember all of the vulnerable users who are going to stay on these platforms and what we can do to help make these platforms a better place for them. To that end, this is my project. It's called onlinecensorship.org and we founded it a few years ago after we saw a lot of censorship around a specific issue that was happening in the Middle East. And we originally came up with the idea as a way to get reports from users who had experienced content takedowns on these social networks or account suspensions and get that data and use it in academic reporting and in other ways. But as time has gone on, we've actually seen more of an advocacy role for ourselves and so I want to tell you just a little bit about what I think we should do and what my organization is doing to fix that. So what do we actually want when it comes to changing these social networks? I've narrowed it down to five things. I'm not saying these are the only five, but these are the five that I see as the most important. The first one, due process. If we're going to have these authoritarian companies making decisions about what speech is acceptable, then we need to remember that, well, they're not authoritarian companies or not the same thing as authoritarian governments. You're not, well, hopefully, not going to get put in jail for fighting back against them for protesting. And in fact, because their bottom line is money, we have the opportunity to influence shareholders and others who can help change these policies. So in instituting due process into the platform, what I'm asking for is that Facebook and Google and Twitter, et cetera, et cetera, that they all provide a means by which users in every situation can appeal the decision that's been made about their content. We know that these companies make unfair decisions every day. We know that they apologize for it repeatedly, but they never seem to do anything to make it easier for users to fix. And that most of the people who get their content put back up or their accounts put back up are people like me who have a really, really loud voice and are not gonna stop screaming at Facebook or actual celebrities too. So due process appeals for users. The second one is transparency. For me, this doesn't just mean transparency around content takedowns, which is something that has been progressing over the years and will continue to do so, but also transparency about a couple of other things. One, about the algorithms that are in your feed. They are the algorithms that determine what is displayed in your feed. We can have transparency around that. It's possible. It's possible that Facebook could also give you more control over how you utilize those algorithms. I'm not saying nobody's asked for it, but there has not yet been a concerted campaign for that kind of algorithmic transparency and I think it's time. The other transparency that we could have, of course, is what the company or what platforms collect and do with our data. And that's something that we're demanding as well. Data portability. I think this one is probably pretty clear to everyone here, but I'm happy to answer questions after if you have them. Diversity. Again, I don't believe in diversity just for diversity's sake. I believe in diversity because I believe that when you have a diverse group of people making decisions, then you have more input from their backgrounds, from their histories, their personal experiences into why things are as they are. So when I talk about diversity at Facebook, the fact that their board is all white, the top executives at the company making policy are not only mostly white, but also almost all went to Harvard? That's not diversity. We can do better. And then the last one, of course, is adherence to human rights norms. And this is where I believe that we need to bring the free expression argument back in. I noticed there aren't that many talks about censorship compared to four years ago and there's a lot of reasons for that. Most authoritarian and democratic governments have kind of moved on from the censorship bandwagon to the surveillance one. You don't hear about censorship, internet censorship so much anymore. Turkey, of course, and you've got the recent examples from a couple of other places, but it's not always at the top of our minds. And I think we need to bring it back and recognize that these companies have more control over our speech than most governments these days. I know that sounds dramatic, but I assure you it's true and I'm happy to debate that point as well. And so as we bring, as we consider this, I think it's important to bring back the norms, the human rights norms that we've all decided on as cultures previously. Let's bring back the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and ask Facebook to be accountable to it. Why do they ban nudity from their platform? Probably because of some parochial American ideas about what's appropriate, but I don't find that acceptable when we're talking about universal human rights and speech. And I think that there are a lot of other things we can do. Like I said, these are my top five. I would also love to see platforms consider things like non-ad-based revenue models, but that'll have to be another talk for another day. So without further ado, if you wanna chat with me, I'm gonna be here to answer some questions right now, but you can also find me probably around the bar tonight or by tweeting at me, et cetera, et cetera. So thank you very much. I appreciate you being here and I hope that that was useful to you. We're now open for questions. So if you have any questions, please use that mic. Hello. Hello. I have a mix between a comment and a suggestion. One is not just data portability, but what matters is the federation. One of the risks I'm feeling when a new social network get proposed is that nobody's there. And this is a problem that has been addressed by take-offs in the 90s. When they force that if you are the monopolist take-off, you have to permit to your customer to bring the phone number in other take-off. Imagine if we can bring our Facebook profile to other social network like L or diaspora. And if you're communicating across the same social network, we are using that infrastructure. If you're communicating to a user in Facebook, we are just making sure infrastructure collaborate. That is something I don't know if there is some progress, but I really wish to see it. And that is my question. And the other point is when I deal with activists, they were using Facebook mostly to say, we have to communicate to the public. Yes, but you are also the person that do not want to be tracked. The only compromise we found was separating the account.  These at least can split the risk. I don't know if there is some kind of safety measure, or if you are aware of some kind of training that is done for that. I'll answer the second one first. I'm not. I'd love to talk more about that with you. Go to his talk tomorrow. That was one of the ones I put up. To your first point, no. And in fact, when it comes to Federation, I would actually say that these companies are moving backwards. So I also sometimes train digital security to train people on using more secure tools. And a couple of years ago, you could use Google Talk or GChat, I guess we call it, us old timers. And Facebook Messenger, or when it used to just be Facebook Chat, you could actually use those with OTR a couple of years ago, and both companies have pulled that so you can no longer do so. I find that really unfortunate. So I think that they're actually moving away from Federation in all cases. I don't know about other examples from outside of the corporate world. I'm so focused on these corporate platforms at the moment that I haven't admittedly have not looked into all of the other options that exist outside of them. That'll be my next phase. Do we have any more? Sorry, it took me a while to walk. So essentially, I really like the five demands you made. I think it synthesizes a lot of policy conversations that we're having nowadays. So I have two questions, and one follows up with the other. The first one is if you could say this is only related to Facebook and not to other intermediaries like from the top of my mind, another powerful Google. And if it also is applicable to Google, then when we're talking about algorithmic transparency, wouldn't that be, is it applicable the same way in which we demand transparency from the state, one and two, how would that be a risk in terms of algorithmic manipulation by end users? That's a really good point. So I would say that the first thing is yes, this does apply to other companies as well. I chose Facebook as a case study because I've been doing a lot of research on it over the past year, so forgive me for that one. But yeah, absolutely applies to other companies. I'm not sure how to answer the second question because I think that what I mean about algorithmic transparency in this case is for Facebook to show what the input, or Facebook or company X, to show what the input values are, to give transparency around the data sets that they're using, I don't know how much that opens it to manipulation. I'd like to talk more about that because it's not something I've thought of before. But I think that this is something where, even if it's not, say, opening the black box entirely, because they're not, I think that the company's resistance to that is purely financial, but there are other ways that they could make the algorithms more user-friendly and more catered to specific needs, and one of the examples that I've heard about is a friend of mine has a severe phobia, and she suggested that, for example, if Facebook has the ability to identify and hash beheading videos, as they're doing, by the way, they are using algorithms to identify and hash images and put them in a shared database that they share with Twitter and a couple of other companies, if they're doing that, then why couldn't they do the same for, like, I don't know, snakes, where you could then say, okay, I want to get all of this out of my feed? So I know that that's not exactly to the point, but I think that giving users a lot more control and sharing more transparently how those decisions are made is my first, that would be the first step. But I'm happy to talk more about that later. I'm not sure I answered it correctly. Hi, Jillian, Andy, EQE on Twitter. Thanks for the talk. I was really interested in what you said about alternative revenue models, and I'm curious if you have any thoughts on that, or if you know anybody who's working in that area, how do we financially make a platform that is sustainable in the long term without taking BGC, without going to add revenue exclusively? Oh, I'm afraid I don't have answers, which is why I only made it as a throwaway point. I mean, I know, right? I think it's interesting, though. Like, how many people here would pay to use Facebook? Oh, so it's actually not that many. How many of you would pay to use, let's not call it Facebook, let's call it something that looks like Facebook, but is a little bit different? Basebook? Okay, all right, that's still less than half the room. So maybe that's not the best model. I'm not sure what it is. I often fail to think about the financial incentives, and it's not great for my advocacy, because I'm like, burn it all down. But yes, I think it's a really good question. I apologize for not having more answers. I do have a couple names for you, but not off the top of my head. I will look and send them. A tweet. Yeah, perfect. Hello. So Federation is quite important, and Open Standards are quite important for many of us here. And I've been observing also the same thing that you said is happening, the backtracking from Open Standards. For example, on Twitter, five years ago, you were able to follow somebody by an RSS feed. Every account had an RSS feed. I mess with this. Everybody, no, no, I'm using RSS. It's live, Twitter. Okay, never mind, I'm just a bad person. So this is happening, obviously. Another thing is that there's obviously the network effect of people being only on the closed social networks and not being able to even show up on the federated open ones, which means that other people are like, why would I go to the other network? Why would I go to, I don't know, Mastodon or Diaspora or whatever, there's quote, unquote, nobody there. While at the same time, for example, Mastodon, there's a great discussion happening exactly in this topic right now, that you were talking about, where you have different instances with different rules, with different diverse kind of, I don't know, ecosystems of users, and there's a discussion of how the whole federated network should handle this.  This is something that is happening there. I think this is something that you might be interested in because this is happening live. So I guess my question is, perhaps we could have you on the open side of things. Thank you. Could I be on the open side? Wait, is that a question, though? The question is, could we expect at some point that you would set up an account on the open side of things? Oh, yes. And I don't want to say this just in case it doesn't happen, but there's a reason that I've waited. I'll tell you later. I can't, yes. But yes, the answer is yes. Hello. Hello. So, you mentioned briefly the way in which parochial American standards values kind of got encoded into social networks. And I see this both with Facebook, but also to a larger extent on YouTube, as a thing that very much adheres to American cultural norms. And being from a Scandinavianish place, our cultural norms are somewhat different. And cultural norms are different from place to place. What I'm wondering is, do you know of anything that has been, like whether anybody has studied the effects that the encoding of these cultural norms into social media has had on cultures where the norms are different? Just to say, are the big social media giants essentially Americanizing everybody? So, great question. Another thing that I can't say on stage, but I'll tell you later, but I have not seen academic research on that point. So I'm doing some work on that very question right now, the impact of cultural norms that these companies are imposing on other parts of the world. Let me just say, because I think I failed to say it in my talk, I was a little nervous about time, one of the things here is that Facebook, YouTube, Twitter to a lesser degree, they're a little bit different, but Facebook and YouTube are both really good examples of this where violence, for large part, is completely allowed on these platforms.  Whereas nudity is completely the opposite, which is to say that it's almost not allowed, and the only exceptions are things like Michelangelo's David. What's interesting about that to me is how very opposite of my life in Germany it is. So I'm American, obviously. I've been living in Germany for three years, and culturally there, it's completely the opposite. Violence, not so much. Sex everywhere, nudity everywhere, I love it. Love it, but yeah, I mean, the companies have absolutely exported these values, and it almost becomes kind of a form of digital colonialism, which again, I talk more and more in hours about, but I think that we do have to consider the ways that these companies are impacting cultural norms in other places, and another thing too, for governments like yours, for example, not that you're a member of it or anything, for governments like that, have you ever seen a government block Facebook? Because I can tell you it's happened three times total, and the thing that really pisses me off about this is that basically what you have is governments like Sweden, which I know that there have been private meetings between Facebook and members of the Swedish government about the fact that nudity is not allowed, there have been feminists within the government who have argued for this, and if they don't like it, why don't they block the site? Why don't they show these companies who's boss and block the website? I'm not advocating for censorship, but you're going to have it either way. I would love to see what would happen if Iceland was like, oh, we're just going to block Facebook. You asked for that one. So speaking, I loved your talk, particularly the beginning, and if you are looking for academic research, there was just a paper published called Systemizing Decentralization and Privacy, The Long Road in Privacy Enhancing Technologies, which overviews the last 250 papers over the last 20 years on decentralization. Yes, send it to me, please.  But my question is actually on the machine learning and the transparency. So I used to work, I have a PhD in machine learning, worked at Yahoo, kind of familiar with how it works, and I like your demand, I think it's a good idea, like why not? Maybe there's some security privacy problems, but it could work out probably. But my concern would be, and I'm not sure this would be the case, that if you actually did get the input vectors, all of the parameters into the algorithms, they would be completely indecipherable. I know, I worked on these things, they're indecipherable. And the data sets are dynamic, so they're typically updated all the time. It's very hard to even determine, per given instance, it's not like we use this data set, it's not an academic paper in industry. So I'm not sure if that's actually a possible thing. If you put a lawyer in a room with that code, they wouldn't understand it, which is unfortunate, because the code itself is really understandable. The algorithms are simple. It's the data sets which are complicated. That's fair. And so I was wondering if you have any thoughts on that, ways you could extend to deal with that sort of real-world problem. Yeah, no, absolutely.  But also, I mean, I think that it's, well, yeah. Anyway, so I have been at EFF for about six years now, and lots of open source evangelists in my world, lots of people telling me that I should use open source, use open source, use open source. And of course, I agree for a number of reasons. But one of the reasons that drives me nuts is when people say, oh, well, you can just inspect the code. Oh, can I, really, with my skill set? No, I'm a sociologist. I can't inspect the code. I have to trust someone else to do that. And so in this case, I almost wonder if maybe what I'm asking for is not actually putting those vectors out there for me, but these companies telling us, these companies actually having a conversation with us, maybe it really is that basic, because they're not even willing to do that. They're not willing to talk about the absolute, the real basics. They won't talk about why they make the decisions that they make, why they take this down, how they implement their own rules. So you're right, maybe I'm asking for something too complicated, but I also wonder if there's any kind of parallel there, because I think a lot of people have heard that argument over the years for open source and been, like, me, unconvinced and almost felt kind of like, oh, okay, yeah, let me just look at the code. I guess what I was saying is I think you could actually read most machine learning algorithms are really simple compared to most Linux or networking, whatever, stuff. It's the data sets, so the racism and the data sets reflect a racist world. It's kind of a hard problem. You can't make a fair data set, because there isn't a non-racist world right now, which is sad, but that's where we're at. We have to fight for that in some revolutionary manner.  Absolutely, no, totally agree. Hi, I'm a Google Plus user, which didn't get much mention here. Oh, you're the one. No, we exist. Sorry, sorry, sorry, Google. Yeah, I do have a Facebook account, which I originally got mostly because everybody at work had a Facebook account and I should get one too, so I got one. And lots of family turned out to be on Facebook, and I noticed that almost nobody was posting anything interesting there. So I mostly ignored it, except for a few family members which I turned on notifications because when the rare time when they did post something, it was something interesting. Eventually, I was felt really forced to use Facebook when two close friends of mine moved to Indonesia for three years, and they used Facebook as their primary platform for communication, so I turned notifications on for that. I only, in Facebook, I really only checked the notifications by now. Where I really interacted with people, where I post my own stuff, that's Google Plus. But I noticed that Google keeps undermining their own platform and increasingly people who used to love Google Plus as the better social network are starting to leave it and moving to Facebook because apparently Facebook fucks up less than Google Plus does. It's hard to believe, but I believe you. Yeah, but anyway, all of this recently got me thinking. I would really like to have my own social network site which could interact with all the others. Maybe I should start on completely different track first. I've been doing freelance work for a number of banks recently, and I learned that there's a new law in Europe that requires banks, banks, they have their own websites, they have their own mobile app where you can do your banking stuff. But there's apparently a European law that requires banks to open up that information to other parties if they use the right authorization, et cetera. So one bank can now have an app which shows data from your bank account at another bank, and you can manage that account through the app from a bank that where the account doesn't belong. And I would like to have the same law for social networks. So you can have a social network that's where you can check your feed on another social network and interact with it without having to use that. So I could use Google Plus to read the post from my friends at Facebook or on Twitter or wherever they are. Or we could start a new social network that can interact with all of those, but on our own terms, without their advertising, without their filters, et cetera, that kind of stuff. But it requires a pretty broad international law that means countries need to be aware of this and want to enforce open interactions here. Oh, that's basically my idea. Cool, yeah, no, no, I think that's a really interesting idea. And I didn't get a lot into law. I could totally chat with some of you about that another time. But I think that this is one of the other questions, too, is what kind of regulation is possible of these companies. I know it was in the, I was just trying to get the talk nice and concise, failed to bring that up. But yeah, really good point, thank you. Awesome, well thanks everyone. Oh, wait, one more thing. Should I stay or should I go? Raise your hand if I should, no, applaud if you think I should stay on Facebook. Okay, and if you think I should go, damn. All right, thank you guys, I'll have to quit now.


what's up guys we're back with another epic video today we're opening the newest yugioh set ancient guardians we have two booster boxes here so this is a collector's rare set usually there's about one in every three boxes has a collector's rare so we're not gonna hit that exact ratio but we do have a good chance about two out of three also there's a giveaway for this video i got a case of this set we're gonna be opening it live on youtube tomorrow so come hang out guys it's gonna be pretty awesome we're gonna be opening 12 boxes that's a case worth and hopefully getting some epic collector's rares so i got these two from the local store because i'm opening my case live tomorrow and i got these two lost our promo so i'm gonna be giving these away to you guys all you have to do is like this video be subscribed and let me know what you think about the newest set it's not too hyped but i did look at the list and the first thing is there's some cool gx cards but the main thing the names the names are even worse than usual usually they're like kind of hard to read this time someone is trolling this is insane so it's gonna be crazy trying to read some of these names but we're gonna try it it's gonna be fun so let's start off with the first booster box and read some of these insane names like the names are crazy they're just putting like they're putting consonants in the middle of the word like where they should not belong they're just it's crazy it's crazy all right snakes rain ancient guardians here we go guys here for the new set it's so quick because it took two months to get ghosts from the past as the newest set and then two weeks later we have ancient guardians so it's very weird the delay made everything just kind of wacky all right this these packs are everywhere i'm not exactly sure like what's in this so i go um for a new set i usually go to the price god i check out you know what what's everything worth you know what's in here i saw those names and i was just like this is gonna be this is gonna be insane i don't know what i'm gonna say okay so a reminder for these kind of sets they have all rares except for the hollow spa which is a super rare ultra rare or collector's rare collectors rares tend to be one every three boxes and then ultra rares are like three per box and like that pot of riches and we've got the super rare it looks like they're in the last spot i can't really remember the last one of these was the set with what's it called it was like blue this is only the third collector's rest set i think so the first set was obviously tune chaos that one was amazing evil evil dragon and anta fun fact my very first youtube video was a dual links video using evil dragon and anta so uh i haven't even seen that card since then i don't think so that's kind of funny damage right and i didn't ever saw that card thing because there's dual links okay very weird okay yeah this is what i'm talking about you guys see this la sulfa cord la sulfa cord what does that mean and then this octatic light octotic light one of those two i'm gonna go with octotic i like that better it is insane it is insane these names are nuts so does anyone actually know how to pronounce them are we just gonna guess i saw it on uh on twitter i think dz tweeted about the name and i was like i'm in big trouble there's a phenomenon this comes as a collector's rare which is really cool throwback to tactile evolution we've actually pulled that an ultimate rare before sulfa cord oh octotic remnant it's the octotic i think octotic is definitely how you say that so just uh take it from me guys the yugio expert that's me right here yugio expert ruckson 34 i have decided that's what it's called the blasting draco slayer okay or sark tick or sark tick or sark tick that that one's that one's tough king the fair olymps do sulfa cord oh my goodness dole sulfa cord oh my gosh somebody's got to solidify how to say it well i already solidified one of them but that one maybe uh someone else can do i'll give it i'll give the reins to someone else uh the burden of naming cards and pronouncing them correctly it's it's a tough to bear this is also a uh collector's rare so yeah just letting you guys know all the hard work i put in the octotic water lily i know it's it's tough it's very tough yeah so i'm pretty excited about the live stream this weekend we also again are going to have we have a snake rain that comes as a collector's rare one of the most expensive ones um we're going to have some epic box openings coming up that's all i can say oh there's our first ultra rare we ruckson 34 specialed it the earth sark tick big differ ultra rare i've no idea if this is good oh it is good this is like the second best non collector's rare so the value in this set is pretty pretty low from what i saw there was like 24 dollar card was the best card besides a collector's rare and then this card was like 14 dollars which is probably even going to go down who knows so the value is not too amazing so far but the collector's rare prices looked okay i mean there's nothing like over 200 i think skullmeister was the most expensive one panker tops okay dinosaur power i wonder if any of these rare is holding any value i don't think any of them are over a dollar so not really sulfa cord so there's sulfa cord and there's doh sulfa cord man this is nuts this is absolutely nuts they're just they're they're running out of names they're just starting to like all right what can we do let's take five names stick it together nailed it damage reptile and the allerate auger do obdotic dark almost mispronounced the name that i that i decided what it was called ancient guardians can we pull the nominant can we pull the skullmeister the skullmeister is the most expensive card so that's pretty big i think i paid 65 a box at the local store which is probably kind of high but you know that is how for locals they can't really charge you know the cheapest price which i have seen a lot of people talk about you know some people are not happy with their locals because they charge too much and i think it's important to also remember that they do have a lot too you know they've got to pay for stuff when these sets like this come out that are not good they don't make any money you know they're not making much they got to pay for a lot of stuff so when they get the good sets they tend to price it higher i used to be very i used to not really like locals because of that and then i kind of thought about the business side of it and i was like wow if if they have to sell i mean if they don't sell the good sets for higher then it really can hurt them when those bad sets come out okay skullmeister rise the snake deity soulful cord harmonia ancient guardians last pack on this side we need to speed it up we've got two boxes this is gonna be a long video at this rate all right vibers rain snake what is that calling it rain i think i said the rain on the other one that confused me watering eyes our sarkatic slider so we only got one of our ultras on that side so we're looking for three ultras total i'm gonna move this box it's kind of in the way all right next pack we've got ancient guardians the guardians that are ancient here we go king of the feral imp straight in trading i think is also a collector rare snake rain it's all these rares from gx are the are the collectors rare it's kind of funny so they're like a lot of tactical evolution cards because tactical evolution had a ton of rares like worth money and commons as well so they're like yeah we're gonna hit all these in this set it's kind of interesting all right oh or sarkatic septentrion okay this is a decent one it's like eight eight-ish dollars okay not bad that's actually pretty good because there's not many cards worth very much at all in this set so that's pretty good we will take that so we've pulled two decent ones the card the best card in here is dusulfa cord coulia let's just call it coulia that make it a little easier okay we just broke the special but not to the rare so it's all good our sarkatic milk tennis next pack two ultras so far out of this box no collectors rare so far all right vipers rebirth it's really hard to see these rares of the new cards for some reason damage reptile and the qtf okay okay okay the pankrat tops master paladin that guy's from dimension of chaos remember him i think he's an ultimate rare in there we pulled him uh yeah he is because we pulled it and that reminds me of the old days the good old um scar red scar light red dragon archvane there we go let's get it out the correct way skull meister so that's a you know that's a throwback to when we pulled four go set of like 300 packs that was crazy remember i sold the last 60 packs and the guy pulled two go set them that was pretty awesome i was like are you kidding me that was so cool eagle dragon ananta dreamia scale and the mcbillis all right we're getting down toward the end we have at least one ultra can it be a collector's rare i don't know if it replaces or not i've not watched anything about this set i think in tune chaos it didn't replace but then in the next set it did which is weird because tune chaos was better i guess they realized there was too much value because tune chaos right off the bat had insane value but then the prices just went crazy i think it's like a 300 box now in first edition which is pretty nuts very popular set though okay there we go somewhat of a russian special and the departure three more packs gotta be some juice in here here we go let's go you've got the oh wow auger dodeck boundless a zoha zoha zoha i like that i like zoha the beauty uh okay it wasn't this one okay another decent one so it looks like we pulled pretty good for the ultras we pulled three decent ones um i don't know if we can even get a clutches right out of here we're gonna try obviously so let's see let's check the last couple of pack snake rain okay none none last pack of this box let's get some good let's go through it quickly all right no clutches rare but let's try the second box maybe we can get one out of here all right 24 more packs let's just get him out of this box let's get going let's pull something epic and i'm talking about the skullmeister collectors rare the number one card in the set i will take that how about a collectors rare though i'm down for any i'm down for any right now let's see what we can do we've got the uh the origin okay i don't want to open them like this departure it's too easy to spoil them like that but it takes way more effort to open it the other way i don't know why it's like the motion it's like more painful i don't know i don't know what it is i know very it's very tough to open cards very um strenuous it's a it's a workout it's very difficult just keep that in mind guys constant workout over here low battery on the phone so hopefully you're not speaking of phones that's what i used to record my hands i know a lot of you guys are wondering a lot of you guys have asked iphone 7 plus yes that is what i use we're not talking about some fancy camera here we're talking about iphone 7 plus epic all right here we go we've got the dreamia scale reptile wavering eyes the megapolar offering the snake deity and the new new ogdodic remnant so far nothing out of this box will we get a collectors rare do you believe in the heart of the collectors rare rise of the snake deity we've got the light serpent dino wrestler pankratops the uh phlogos dinosaur power and the mic polar the mic polar here we go here we go let's go round two box two of ancient guardians let me know what you think in the comments about ancient guardians do you love it do you hate it are you neutral have you bought any have you pulled anything crazy oh another beauty that's number two from this opening not a bad one i think it was the worst by a couple of cents but the worst compared to the other two but so pretty good all right yeah so we have some epic boxes coming um some epic stuff i bought in the mail that's just sitting there and not getting here it was supposed to be here days ago and it's not even close to here it's still haven't left the left the original state it was in so i'm not happy about that kind of a bummer but it's okay we have other epic content to open but unfortunately not at that good we disrupt some special three cards unbelievable nia the ogdo to gremnant all right one ultra down two to go hopefully a correct a correctors rare and erect okay that sounded weird i was about to say a rector set but that just yeah let's just keep going okay definitely not as excited about this set as like ghosts from the past because collectors rears are cool but there's nothing like crazy collectible there are some gx cards which is nice um but nothing like old school there's no you know dark magician no blue eyes alternative even though that's not technically old but it's for a blue eyes so it's more of a i don't know are these cards even playable i guess some of them are snake ran i know is like some of those rears are playable in the fair alimps and the milk tannis so far are these okay these boxes might be mappable because we pulled one ultra on both right sides so far the left side is had is going to be if it's two you know it's going to be the same cutia all right one half left that seems like they might be mappable it seems like these collectors were sets tend to be somewhat mappable i mean i remember tion chaos being very similar about where they were in the box by mappable i mean where the poles are in the box so like the fourth fourth pack down from you know the top top right or whatever usually has an also something like that i don't know if the collectors rears will be though they might not be so that's kind of the most important part but it's kind of bad when they're when they're mappable or sarktik polari another decent one so maybe all the ultras are decent right now what's probably going to happen is that you know we get to the actual release date which is tomorrow aka today which when you're watching it and you know when everyone can sell their their cards and stuff friday i think is the first day then the prices are going to go down for a lot of cards some of them it will not but a lot of times you know there's just tons of cards ready to be sold they can't be listed unless they're a you know i think it's a you know kinami approved store whatever they call that i already i just forgot uh they can sell on thursday i think so once you get friday everyone can sell like you know it's regular old people like me and then everybody's posting their cards for sale and there's tons on the market prices go way down unless it's a really good card or really hard to pull or something like that panker tops so a lot of these will probably not be the same price tomorrow and i probably won't get as much value out of them as it will say today that's kind of how that works for when i do these uh openings the day of because i recorded them the day before and i edit the day before so i use the day before prices a lot of times people will be like that's the wrong the wrong price or or somebody will watch a video a year old until me my price is wrong and i'm like yep that's what happens it is not staying the test of time very well especially a year okay we're on the second box guys we have opened a lot we've pulled two ulters so far no collectors rare not good luck so far not good luck in terms of the collectors rare the crs hit the like button for collector rare here we go believe in the heart of the cards a phenomenon airs rock sunrise also come out to the live stream guys it's gonna be fun oh the agnotic remnant okay four packs left here we go here we go scale we got a damage reptile watering eyes or starting a mega polar okay all right three packs left what was it last time third or last pack i think okay is this going to be it let's see let's see if they're mappable we're about to find out so we got the uh okay so there's a mine from my sulfa cord okay that's that's weird light serpent this is gonna be an ultra i have a feeling here we go there it is the amnesia the agnotic queen all right this one says is like 12 bucks so this is like the second best card we've pulled according to uh just the tcg player price guide pulled like not actually zoomed in to the closest or lowest price is just like the average they have on there which usually is not right but sometimes it's kind of close especially though early though it's probably not right agnotic calling i'm guessing we're not going to get a collector's rare but maybe gracia all right final pack guys hope you guys have enjoyed this new let's say pokemon card opening for some reason i don't know why new yugioh card opening yeah don't yeah you guys can go ahead and burn me at the stake in the comments there is a super rare okay let's go over what we got from two boxes all right so here's what i don't really like about these collectors rare boxes let's show what we got we got one two three four five six pulls that's it so you get six ultras if you don't get a collector rare you get six ultras out of two boxes so three and three three pulls in the whole box it just feels a little bit weird i don't know we pulled okay in terms of value just feels like you come out of it with not much because a lot of these supers and rares and all that stuff i guess some of them are sometimes worth something but in this set they're not really so i don't know let me know what you guys think about that that's it for this video tomorrow live stream on youtube if you guys want to keep up with announcements stuff like that go to my instagram at ruckson 34 twitter at ruckson 34 i'm usually tweeting out stuff like that so you guys don't forget and that's it for this video see you guys later peace


I'm Sam Vaknin and I am the author of Malignan's Self-Love, Narcissism Revisit. Narcissists often carry on talking, or rather hectoring and lecturing, long after their interlocutors, board-stief and resentful have physically departed or mentally switched off. The narcissist is shocked to discover that he has been conversing with thin air for a while. He is equally astounded when he is abandoned or shunned by spouses, friends, colleagues, the media, their fans, or audiences. The root of this recurrent astonishment is the narcissist perverse object constancy. According to the great developmental psychologist Margaret Mahler, between the age of 24, 36 months of life, the infant is finally able to cope with the mother's absence by finding appropriate substitutes to her presence. The infant knows that the mother will return and transfer to do so time and again. The psychic image of the mother is internalized as a stable, reliable and predictable object. As the infant's sense of time and verbal skills evolve, it becomes more immune to delayed gratification and more tolerant of inevitable separation. Piaget, the renowned child psychologist, concurred with Mahler and coined the term object constancy to describe the dynamics that she had observed. As opposed to Mahler, Daniel Stern, another prominent psychoanalyst, proposes that the child is born with a sense of self. Quote, infants begin to experience a sense of an emergent self from birth. They are predesigned to be aware of self-organizing processes. They never experience a period of total self or total other fragmentation or undifferentiation. There is no confusion of self and other in the beginning or at any point during infancy, says Stern. It continues. Infants are predesigned to be selectively responsive to external social events, and they never experience an autistic-like phase. During the period of two to six months of life, the infant consolidates the core sense of self as a separate, cohesive, bounded physical unit with a sense of their own agency, effectivity and continuity in time. There is no symbiotic-like phase. In fact, the subjective experiences of union with another, in this case the mother, can occur only after a core self and a core other exist. Well, this is Stern's point of view. But even Stern accepts the existence of a distinct and separate other versus a nascent and emergent self. Pathological narcissism is a reaction to deficient bonding and dysfunctional attachment, according to Bauerbeck. Object relations in narcissists are infantile and chaotic according to Winnicott and Guntry. Many narcissists have no psychological object consistency at all. In other words, many of them do not feel that other people are benign, reliable, helpful, constant, predictable and trustworthy. They regard the world as hostile, unpredictable and unreliable. To compensate for this lack in ability or in willingness to relate to real life people, the narcissists invent and mould substitute objects or surrogate objects. These are mental representations of meaningful or significant others. What I call sources of narcissistic supply. These concoctions, these inventions, these substitutes for real people have little or nothing to do with reality inevitably. These magos, images, are confabulations, they are works of fiction. They respond to the narcissists' needs and fears, and do not correspond to the persons that they purport to symbolize or stand for. The narcissist internalizes these pliable representations. He manipulates them, he interacts with them, but not with the originals. So for every person in the narcissist's life, there is an image or a symbol with which the narcissist interacts instead of interacting with the real person. The narcissist is entirely immersed in his world. He talks to these figurines. He argues with these substitutes and symbols, he contracts with these surrogates, he is being admired by them, and they provide him with narcissistic supply almost regardless of what the real people do. Hence the narcissist is dismayed when he is confronted with real people, with their needs, feelings, preferences, boundaries and choices. The typical narcissist therefore refrains from any meaningful discourse with his spouse and children, friends and colleagues. Instead, he spins a narrative, in which these people, represented by mental avatars, admire him, find him fascinating, feverishly wish to oblige him, love him, or even fear him, if all else fails. These avatars have little or nothing to do with the way his kin and Keith really feel about him. The protagonists in the narcissist's yarns do not incorporate veritable data about data about his wife, his offspring, or colleagues or friends. These, again, avatars symbols are mere projections of the narcissist's inner world, not his outer world, his inner world, the narcissist externalizes his inner world and then interacts with it. Thus, when the narcissist faces the real thing, he refuses to believe and accept the facts. And typical sentences are, my wife has always been so cooperative, whatever happened to her lady. Truth, in reality, the wife has never been cooperative, she was subservient or frightened into submission. But the narcissist didn't notice these facts, because he never actually saw her, he never actually noticed his real spouse, wife. Another typical sentence is, my son always wanted to follow in my footsteps, I don't know what possesses him. Well the truth is that the narcissist's poor son never wanted to be a lawyer or a doctor, he always dreamed of being an actor or an artist, but the narcissist was not aware of it. He was not aware of the existence of his real son and he never interacted with the real thing, but with the representation of his own making. A typical sentence, my friend used to listen to my stories and ruptured, I have no idea why he no longer does so. Well, at first the friend politely listened to the narcissist in terms of a rinse, ramblings and rabies, and finally he dropped from the narcissist's social circle, because he couldn't bear it any longer. And then the celebrity narcissist would say, I used to be admired by the media, now I'm constantly being ignored. Well, of course at first, an object of derision and morbid fascination, the media paid attention to the narcissist, but then the novelty wore off, and the media moved on to other narcissists. But the narcissist hasn't noticed, because he is detached from the real world, he interacts actually with himself. Puzzled, hurt and clueless, the narcissist withdraws further and further with every narcissistic injury, finally he is forced into choosing a delusional way out. On this in another video.


If I can step his hindquarters to my left, I power up his outside hind leg, so it's easy to strike off a canter. If I bring my outside leg back, and I get him swinging his hind quarters to the right, I'm powering up his left hind leg, so it's easy to strike a right lead. Right lead, walk in. Hindquarters left, left lead. And then the hindquarters are already left, so it's not too hard to have him come around on it. Hindquarters, there we go, I missed it there, but I was going to say hindquarters to the right. One more time. Come into the walk. Get it in the walk. Hindquarters to the left, good. Hindquarters to the right. Strike off on your right lead.