I'm the President and CEO of New America and this is an event I've been waiting for and a subject so close to my heart. And so before I launch into some opening comments on Baternity Leave, I do want to thank our sponsoring partner in our event, which Probe Mundo, which is a global organization that works to engage men and boys on issues of global equality. And Gary Barker here in the front row who is the International Director and Founder. When I met him just in person, I said we are retweeters. I've been retweeting him for a long time and reading him and saying absolutely and why aren't more people saying this. So what I want to do is talk about how Baternity Leave helps women and then how it helps men and then how we get there. And there are many different ways to get there. I'm just going to give you one way. So let's start with how it helps women. And the standard narrative or a standard narrative is Baternity Leave would help women because it would level the playing field in terms of how people take time off when children are born. It takes two people to conceive a child still no matter where that act may happen. And it should take two to raise them and this normalizes the idea that when children come into the world and need to be raised, it's a joint responsibility. And that that would then reduce the stigma around women taking maternity leave because it would become family leave, maternity or paternity. And critically, if more men took paternity leave, more men would start saying, well, why are you discriminating against me when I come home? Come back. Why are you assuming I'm no longer as committed to my career? Which is what happens to women all the time if it were something where men were also taking that leave and also discovering the immediate, gee, I guess you're not as committed to your career as I thought you were, which will happen even more for men than for women because it's rarer, then that will help break open these attitudes overall. And I think that's true. But I think it's just a small part of the story. I think the other piece that no one's talking about is that we need paternity leave so that men can bond with their children in ways that will make them want to be the primary caregiver, at least for some part of that child's life, and that will then make it more socially acceptable to men and to women for men to be in that role. And we need that because if we really want women at the top, the very top, I just came back from Davos, so that level top, all those CEOs, the only way we're going to get there is for men to be supporting women the way women support men. And that's the piece that no one's talking about. And all the most powerful women, this, that, and the other that I go to that we all celebrate, the women CEOs, and it's so great, nobody ever says, would you please explain what your husband does? At least 50%, and it's very hard to get statistics precisely because women don't want to talk about this, at least 50% have a husband who is the primary caregiver. We should not be in the least surprised about that. There is no male CEO with a family I've ever seen who did not have a wife who was a primary caregiver. She might have been a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, some other wonderful thing. She might have continued to work, but she's the available parent. I can't be here unless my husband is the available parent. It just doesn't work. Women don't want to talk about this because they think it's emasculating because there's just a part of their story they don't want to tell, and yet it's an essential piece. And so we've got to normalize that for men as well as for women. It starts early on, right? Why is my husband willing to play that role? He's not just willing. He wanted to play that role because I had four months, we were both academics, so I had a semester of maternity leave, and he had a semester of paternity leave. And by the end of his semester of paternity leave, our son was calling for him rather than for me, which he definitely enjoyed. I enjoyed less, but that's the deal, right? I mean, that's what you get. You get to be the center of some small being's existence for good or for ill. And he felt as competent as I did, taking care of our son. Indeed, I would argue in some ways he was more competent. Neither one of us had the baby manual, and he did a lot more reading than I did. So paternity leave is essential to establish that bond where the guy says, hey, not only is this pretty wonderful to engage with a child and bond in the way that you do, but also so the guy feels every bit as competent as the woman does. And that over then going forward, they really are equal partners. So paternity leave, by starting that process and legitimating it and allowing and saying, yes, this is just as normal for a guy as it is for a woman, long term puts more men in the position where, as I put it, they can support their wives with care rather than cash. Because we're good on men support their wives. That's good. That's part of the traditional male idea of a man as a provider and a protector. He supports his family. My point is there are many ways to provide. There are many ways to support. Care and cash are the two big ones. Somebody's got to bring home dollars or whatever currency you're in, and somebody has to convert those dollars to nurture and shelter and clothing and food and education. And if you don't have those two things, nobody survives. So they're equal, care and cash. And traditionally men provided the cash, women provided the care. Now women can provide both. The next phase is that men have to be able to provide the care and have to be fully legitimated and valued to do it.  So that's how I think about why paternity leave is incredibly important for women. Because I think in the end you can't get women to the same place men are unless you let men get to the same place women are. And that's not the way we normally frame it. And that involves all sorts of issues around how we think about what's masculine and how we think about what's feminine that I won't go into right now. But then let's talk about what paternity leave does for men. And I've already said that it allows a man to develop the same kind of relationship with his child that it does for a mother. Now we have all these myths about, they're not myths. They're half truths about children need their mothers. And in fact I hear this all the time. I've got one guy who drives me back and forth often and he's always telling me, you know, children need their mothers. There's just nothing like it. It's got to be the mothers. I just don't believe that. I mean I do think children need their mothers. But I also think children need their fathers. And I think they need their fathers every bit as much as they need their mothers although it is a different relationship. Now of course that difference is also going to vary according to what kind of a man you are and what kind of a woman you are. And as we know the differences in trod gender are greater in the end than the differences in ter gender. So there's going to be lots of different ways. But allowing a man to bond with his child in that way that a woman does early on is, you know, it's one of the great experiences of your life, right? And what has to happen for this to really develop is the guy has to be solely in charge. Because there are countless examples of, you know, the guy, somebody just came up to me a week ago and said, you say that a man can bond with his child just the same way a woman can, but my daughter just had a child and my son in law says that child has eyes only for his mother. And I said, has your son ever really been the primary caregiver or is he helping, right? Is he doing what his wife says to do? And he said, oh well he's helping. And I said, yeah, well that's why, right? He's never actually the sun and the moon and the stars for that child. The mother's there and he's sort of the additional, well not surprisingly the child looks at the mother. The data shows that where men really are the primary caregiver, they have the same kinds of bonds and they have similar hormonal changes. It's not oxytocin, but it's similar hormonal changes to a woman. Now, that's something all men should be able to experience. It's the right to be a father and to be a father in a full and engaged way, the same way women expect to be able to be mothers. To get there, we are going to have to reduce female sexism. Because when I talk to groups of women, which I mostly do, I offer the following hypothetical. I say, if you walked into your office and your boss said to you, I'm biologically better at this, but I think you can do it if I just give you enough instruction. And if when you travel, I will call in every hour to make sure you're doing it right. Not enough of you or parents, because every woman who above a certain age starts laughing when I give them that hypothetical, because she knows that's the way we treat our husbands. And I speak from experience. I mean, I did that until my husband finally said, I'm happy to be the primary caregiver, but I'm doing it my way, not your way. That is also what the husband of the first prime minister, female prime minister of Norway, Gro Bruntlen, said, four kids, she was asked to be in the cabinet at 35, he said, great, I'll do it my way. Women, and again, I'll include myself, we do tend to assume, we've been socialized to assume, we do bear the child, although we don't actually know what we're doing once the child is delivered, I mean, it doesn't come with an instruction manual, we figure we got to figure it out. We do tend to think that we know how to do it. And we know how to do it the way our mothers did it. But there's nothing to say that's right, right? When I'm taking care of my kids, the house is a lot cleaner. I think they're better nourished. I do think that eating with forks and knives rather than fingers is preferred. And I'm quite certain that is a good way to raise a child. When my husband is in that role, few of those things happen, but they learn poker. They watch endless movies around a particular theme. They do all sorts of really exciting sort of fun things that I actually wouldn't think about, and who on earth is to say that one or the other way is better? Ideally, we both have both, right, in the perfect world. So what I want to say about what it does for men is it empowers them in the family sphere in the same way that women have been empowered in the work sphere. And women often work differently than men, not always, again, this is not biological essentialism, but we have lots of things to bring to the workplace, and the workplace is a better place because of it. Men have that same thing to bring to the family. So let me just conclude with how do we get there? This would be great for women, this would be great for men. One way to get there is the way the Germans have done it, and I just listened to Ursula von der Leyen, who's now the Minister of Defense, but was the Minister of Family, who is a conservative. She's said, she put in expanded maternity leave and paternity leave in Germany, she is an absolute crusader for women's rights and men's rights and paternity leave. She herself has seven children making it very hard for her conservative peers to attack her, because she's there as the ultimate family woman who is making this argument. What they did was to put in a year's worth of family leave, ten months of that you can divide however you want, two months of that, if the guy doesn't take it, you lose it. So it's user lose. And what that's done, it's transformed paternity leave from this thing that only very few number of guys did and was not regarded as particularly masculine, to how idiotic are you to leave money on the table, right? You got two months of salary at 80% and you're not gonna take it. So 30% of German men up from five, and this has only been a few years, are now taking paternity leave. And this is Germany, this is a pretty hard culture to crack on this score. So 30% of German men in Scandinavia, as we know, where they've had similar kinds of paternity leave policies, not only are a majority of men taking paternity leave, but the culture in companies is changing such that a Finnish CEO said to me, I'm beginning to look at somebody who didn't take paternity leave and wonder what's wrong with him. And that's where I'm gonna leave it. That's where we ought to get to, is you had a child. You have the opportunity to take time out. You don't do that because you'd rather work and the culture sends you that message. What's wrong with you and what's wrong with us? But we're gonna fix that today. So that is all I have to tell you. I would, as I said, this is one of my very favorite subjects. I'm gonna hand over now to Dan Koyes, who is somewhere in the room, I hope. I'm not gonna hand over quite yet. Here we go. So Dan Koyes who slates a culture editor and equally importantly a father, or more importantly, equally, we'll go with that. Equally, I think that's how I feel. Who is going to talk about how paternity leave impact or he's gonna moderate a discussion about how paternity leave impacts the life of the child. So thank you very much. Thank you so much for coming. My name is Dan Koyes. As Amory said, I'm the culture editor at Slate. I also co-host Slate's parenting podcast, which is called mom and dad are fighting. Please listen. So when my two daughters were born, I took unpaid paternity leave both times. I had to argue my way into it because I worked at two companies, not Slate, where people didn't have kids usually and definitely dudes didn't have kids. So that was traumatic. And my actual memories of those weeks are somewhat shaky. Like it's sort of all a haze of late night feedings and arguing with my mother-in-law and worrying about how much the baby weighed. And so I don't remember a lot of it. And so naturally I would really like some reassurance that that time was well spent. So I've brought this panel here to reassure me personally while also to talk to all of us about paternity leave and how it impacts the life of a child on any number of fronts. So let's meet our esteemed panel that's starting right next to me. Joe Jones is founder of the Center for Urban Families, a Baltimore nonprofit service organization with the goal of enhancing the ability of women and men to contribute to their families as wage earners and of men to fulfill their roles as fathers. He currently serves on President Obama's task force on fatherhood and healthy families. Hello, Joe. Dr. Liz Peters is a labor economist and demographer with over 30 years of experience in social and family policy related research. Her work focuses on the impact of public policies on child care choice, work family balance, family decision making, family formation and dissolution, child support, child well-being and father involvement. Peters is currently the director of the Urban Institute Center on Labor, Human Services and Population. Hello, Dr. Peters. And Mike Feigelsen, Feigelsen or Fagelsen or Fiegelsen? Fagelsen. Fagelsen is the executive director of the Bernard Van Leer Foundation based in the Hague and focused on improving opportunities for children up to age eight who are growing up in socially and economically difficult circumstances. Mike has degrees from Wesleyan and Princeton universities. He serves on the World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Behavior. Hello, Mike. All right, so we have three great panelists here. I have a bunch of questions for them. You guys have questions for them too, I hope. We'll open the floor up to questions toward the end. So first, I want to talk to ask all of you. This is something that Anne-Marie touched on in her opening remarks. How does paternity leave fit into sort of a growing or evolving view of what fathering really is, both America and worldwide?  How does that affect paternity leave and how people viewing? Joe, why don't we start with you? Well, you know, it's interesting. First of all, thank you all for having all of us here. I can't tell you how exciting it is to be in a form where we're talking about dads in a very positive light and thinking about what it means for strong families, strong communities, and a strong America. Paternity leave is one of those things that personally, when I remember when my youngest son was born and I was working for the Baltimore City Health Department within maternal and child health and with an emphasis on maternal and child health. And we had really cajoled the health department to think about what it meant to work with the dads who were the fathers of the children born to those mothers that the health department was tasked with working with to reduce infant mortality. And when my son was born, because I had this interest in fatherhood, I knew I wanted to spend time. But I felt so awkward asking for time off to do it. And so when I think about that and then fast forward to my organization, which was last year celebrated, it's 15-year anniversary.  But I really couldn't regurgitate to you what our policy was around it. And so I went back to our HR folks, and I've got a great COO. And she took my mandate and moved forward. And we now, every dad who has a child or adopts gets two weeks of paid paternity leave. Now, we're a nonprofit with emphasis on non. So for us to be able to stretch and do that is, it takes a bit, but that's our commitment. Because we want to make sure that when we talk about our tagline, so the name of the organization is the Center for Urban Families, our tagline is helping fathers and families work. So we don't want to be an organization that promotes responsible fatherhood. And internally, we're not supporting dads to spend time with their children consistently across the board, but particularly doing those very early and important days after the birth of a child. So for us, it's both personal, it's both real, and we want to model that kind of presence within the nonprofit sector. Do you find that the younger employees at your organization, the dads of the younger dads, do they take that as a given that they should be so involved with their kid's life that paternity leave is like a no, you don't even have to think about it? It's kind of hard to work for me at that unit. Fair enough. I just believe it's a fundamental tent of who we are as an organization. And some of that has to do with my role as being the founder and still being there after 15 years. But leadership doesn't matter. And if my organization, God forbid, I got hit by the bus. I don't want to get hit by the bus. But if I did, and we had to make an immediate shift to new leadership, with that individual person still bringing the same kind of perspective. So I do think leadership matters, and we need to cultivate new leaders who embody those kind of principles. So COO's who will actually take those vague proclamations and make them into policy. Not just COO's, but janitors as well. We want everybody in the organization to feel and perpetuate that thought. Liz, in your research, talk to us a little bit about some of the findings that you guys have collected and discovered from research around the world about how paternity leave really materially affects the life of a child. Is there, do you have a sense of the real studies that show the positive effects that paternity leave can have on a child? Well, I think I want to actually put paternity leave into the broader context of work-family balance. Because as we briefly discussed before this, there is not a lot of research, especially in the US, on paternity leave per se. But work-family balance, there's a lot of work on that, much of it relating to women. But more and more, there is work that's looking at the role that dad can play in the family. So there's a lot more research on child care. The dad's providing child care. We know that when moms are employed, 30% of the kids are in some dad care while the mom is employed. That's one of the largest forms of child care for kids 0 to 5. So we know that's big. Again, we know a lot less about paternity leave. But that's what starts it all. So the purpose, I think, of paternity leave, the several purposes are one to facilitate that early bonding between dads and their kids. The hope is to shape habits and behaviors so that dads will continue in those kind of roles over time. So one recent study that was done by Leonard of Hamnishie and Jane Womfogel showed that dads who took longer paternity leave were more likely to be involved with their kids in caring for their kids, diapering and bathing and so forth, nine months later. And they were trying to control for everything. So there's a little bit of research, but not very much research on this yet. But I do want to put it into the broader context of work family because I think we not only want to be talking about paternity leave, we're going to talk about paid sick leave and other ways to facilitate dads and moms to be able to care for their kids. Mike, on a global level, what kinds of research do you see about the tangible effects that paternity leave and work-life balance can have on kids? Most of the stuff we see is in Europe and it basically has a positive impact on almost anything that you can imagine. So we see it in terms of lower levels of violence in the family, kids doing better on test scores later in life, better health outcomes for children. You see better health outcomes for the fathers themselves. You see families making more money, though women are into the workforce. There's one study that I thought was particularly interesting. I have a nine-month-old daughter and I think of this study frequently. It found that when children saw their fathers involved in domestic work, they'd be more likely to choose for careers like engineering. And so every time I'm walking out of the or other careers that are outside the house and not stereotypically female.  I mean, she's very young. But the research that we do have in a lot of it is from places like Sweden and Finland and Norway. And of course, everyone says, but that's Sweden and Finland and Norway. It's a rich country. It's a small country. I mean, it just indicates that everything is better. This vision of growing up Mila being like, I'm not going to iron that. That's man's work. But if I could just say, your initial question, I think the point about paternity leave, because we work in a lot of countries where even if you say it wouldn't matter, it's such a large informal workforce in some places, it's a norm setting device, I think, like any legislation. On the one hand, saying it's OK to be involved. And the other saying it's your responsibility to be involved. And I think that those two messages are very important, not just for the kids, but for men and women. And in my particular case, when I come back to the US, I live in the Netherlands. I just came in. I have to adjust myself and remind myself I'm in the United States. Because in Europe, two weeks doesn't sound so great. Although in the Netherlands, it's only one. But I work for an organization that's focused on early childhood development. And my daughter was born. I had six weeks paid leave. And then two weeks into my paid leave, the chair of the board called and said, then executive director has resigned. Would you like to do this? And I said, I would love to do this. I cannot do anything until my paternity leave is over. And he said, of course not. That conversation has never occurred in the United States. I suspect it may have occurred in Promundo, one of our co-hosts. But I guess the point being that these sorts of policies, and again, the Netherlands as a country, is not actually great on this. They have one week. But the permission and the sense that it's your responsibility, I think, sends a message to the whole society. So even if it's not going to be implemented for the whole country, it's still important to begin to set norms and laws to this effect. Joe, you mentioned, and Liz, you also mentioned this notion that paternity leave is a way of sort of setting a certain baseline and developing a certain understanding in fathers of the level of involvement and engagement that they can have with their families and their children. Joe, in your work in Baltimore, do you see at a community level a growing acceptance of that notion that fathers are not just people who support financially or who protect, but who are actually engaged in the lives of their kids? So you're asking me the days of John Wayne and the Rifleman, Chuck Connors and all that. Has that changed? I guess, yes. Well, it's interesting, because going back to the founding of our country, we've always had this perception of men going to work and going to war, being providers and protectors. And our stories are replete with folks who say, I know my dad loved me, but he never had the capacity to actually verbally say it. And so it really is, how do we change that narrative? And I do see over the course of the last 10 to 15 years that narrative being changing, that narrative changing with respect to what's happening in the community, where you now, it's not so much an aberration to see a young man, and I'm talking about a brother, right? A brother with locks in his hair, pushing a baby carriage down the streets of Baltimore City, right? That would never have happened 10 or 15 years ago. But I do want to share one thing, and this is Dateline. Dateline, I'm not going to read the entire letter, but I just want to read an aspect of it. Dateline, June 16, 1995, memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. Subject, supporting the role of fathers and families. This is from President Bill Clinton. I am in firm belief that the future of our republic depends on strong families, and that committed fathers are essential to those families. I'm also aware that strengthening fathers' involvement with their children cannot be accomplished by the federal government alone. The solutions lie in the hearts and consciences of individual fathers and the support of the families and communities in which they live. However, there are ways for a flexible, responsible government to help support men in their role as fathers. Therefore, today, I'm asking the federal agencies to assist me in this effort. I direct all executive departments and agencies to review every program, policy, and initiative, herein referred to collectively as programs that pertains to families to blank, blank, blank, blank, blank. Every agency included the Office of Personnel Management, and there were a group of us that were invited by the White House to review the reports that came into the White House through the Vice President's office. And even the Office of Personnel Management says, how the heck do we do this? And it tied into how do you change policies so that even within federal government, when guys are having babies, paternity leave is one of those things. So we can begin to see, like in 1995, which I would consider to be the period around the modern day era of responsible fatherhood, how some of the groundwork was laid for us to be having discussions like this. I don't know back then if we would be holding a conversation here around paternity leave. So we have evolved, we have advanced, but we are nowhere as near close to being equitable in terms of how we support moms to be nurturers and caregivers and our expectations for dads. I'd love to see a dad, when he's holding his child, that when a dad goes into the hospital when his child was being born, where the staff will engage him, support him and encourage him to be there. I remember when my son was born, I went to cut the umbilical cord. They looked at me like I was crazy. They wanted to push me off to the side and ask me that I had a constitution to really do it. And so I think that changing that narrative about what the possibilities are for dads is critically important. Within a presidential campaign, the largest expenditure in terms of a line item is around marketing and communications. To change the hearts and the minds of people, we've got to change the narrative. I think those kind of investments in terms of changing the narrative go into supporting what happens on the ground and within communities. How did you do when you cut the cord? I think I did OK. I mean, when these were a little shaky, I wouldn't tell it back then, because I had to be a man. But you know. I almost passed out. But to Mike's point about the evidence, the evidence says my son went on to become an engineer. So you know, I noted him down. So I just shared one other piece of evidence that my staff prepared some talking points for me for this. And I was reviewing one. And we have a research and evaluation officer who I'm always critiquing because she's not sort of thinking about political strategy. And she surprised me. So I just want to share one. She said, what are dads the most afraid of? Dads of girls. She said, they're girls getting pregnant when they're younger. And there's evidence to suggest that if dads are getting involved, that's less likely to happen. I'll tell you on the count of side, one of the biggest fears of our dads is they don't want to be in the house alone with their daughters the first time that that thing happens. Read between the lines, if you don't completely get me, right? I think we're allowed to say you're referring to menstruation. You said that, not me. I think if you want to change the narrative, and this has to do with what are dads afraid of? What are they interested in? A lot of the narrative that I hear that we see, it's not working from where men already are. It's not thinking about what they naturally want and then trying to appeal to that. It's saying you need to change. And I think that we would be much more effective if we said, you can still be powerful. You can still demand respect. This is how you get it, as opposed to making men feel like they might lose some of those things. And so the way that we market to men to work from their self-interest, just from an efficacy standpoint, I think will work a lot better. The day when a man holding his baby in ironing is a symbol of toughness, that's when things will have changed. I think it's also important when trying to change the narrative to be also aware of the potential constraints. And one thing that occurred to me when I was thinking about this is that the situation is often very different for middle class families versus lower income families. There are different kinds of constraints for lower income families. One constraint is kind of the norms. And I think this whole nurturing father thing really started out much more of a middle class phenomenon. And the red winner was really an important narrative and I think still continues to be in the low income communities. And so not that low income dads aren't nurturing, but I think that this red winner thing is so important maybe because they struggle so hard to put bread on the table. Other constraints for low income families are that the kinds of jobs that they're in are they certainly don't get any kind of paternity leave. The administration has been trying to make the business case for parental leave. And I think they can pretty convincingly make the business case for high skilled jobs. You want to reduce, turn over, you increase morale for high skilled jobs. For low skilled jobs that a lot of these low income dads have, that case isn't nearly as strong. So you're going to have businesses being less willing to have family friendly policies. And I think the third thing that's different about low income dads is that you have a higher likelihood of not living with their kids. And you've got to figure out how to deal with it. Not that they don't. Again, there's a lot of these dads that do. Half of the kids that are born outside of wedlock, the parents are cohabiting at the time of marriage. But still, there's a higher proportion of dads in lower income families not living with their kids. Some of them are still involved. Some of them are not. And the ones that are still involved, I think we need to be thinking about how do you offer paternity leave for them? What kind of logistics are there in order to make that eligible? And how does one develop a policy around that? So I think it's important to think about the constraints that may be different for different types of populations. What? Do any of you have any thoughts on ways that, other than just mandating from the top down through legislation, which may or may not ever happen in this country, what are ways to encourage, both to encourage lower income fathers to seize these opportunities and to encourage the kinds of places that lower income fathers often work to offer these kinds of opportunities? Are there ways to incentivize that or ways to make that happen? I know from Alvin's point, part of what we do at the center for our families is to connect dads back to their children. And as she was mentioned, some of these family types are very complex. But we also want them to be connected to the labor force, both the men and the women that we serve. And we really work with our key employer partners, not just to give a person the opportunity to work, but to understand what we're trying to achieve in terms of strengthening families. And we want them to be involved and engage and get exposed to the programming that we do. So it's not just a transactional relationship where we're asking the employer to hire somebody. It's really getting to know the families and the individuals that we serve. And I think when you can make it more human, right now, particularly with some of the way in which folks apply for employment now, online profiling, software that will not even get you to a face-to-face interview unless you can do all the right things in terms of submitting an online application and filling out a profile, when we get away from that human connection, the way in which we see some people makes it very difficult for us to promote the kind of policies that says we want to be a company that changes and reflects the complexity of the people that we hire to address some of the things that was mentioned in terms of how do we not look at the nuclear family as the only way in which we provide parental or paternity leave and support for families and people to take time off. And I think it's easy for us to default back to what we need to do for moms. And it really is difficult for a lot of us to think through what it means to engage dads in these kind of complex policies and changing dynamics within the workforce. And I think that we just got to continue to drill. Conversations like this are absolutely necessary, but I don't think they can stop here. They have to happen in communities where people actually live. And I think we have to think about what role the face of the community has in these kind of conversations as well. Mike, as your organization, I know that you guys give out grants to lots of different organizations around the world. Are there organizations you know of that are doing work in these specific areas that you would recommend or that people ought to look into? I'd certainly recommend Promundo. And we do work with them. I mean, we work in a lot of environments where paternity leave as such is not a real possibility. So we're trying to find other ways to involve dads. And maybe I'll share one example of something we're doing with the Private Sector Foundation of Uganda, which is a coalition that lobbies for better business conditions in Uganda for all Ugandan businesses. And over a period of time, we persuaded them that investing in early childhood was a way to get better business conditions for the country. And started talking to them about how to involve fathers more. And in this environment, I was telling Joe about it. We're working in pretty extreme poverty, less than $1 a day in rural areas. And what they did was they set up these savings and loans groups. It's literally a box with three keys. And people come together and they save money, open it every week who needs money, who's paying back, et cetera. The fathers with some external stimulus in this process that belong to this setup, what they call the Responsive Fatherhood Club. So they would meet together just before or after the loan repayment meetings and talk about what they could do to get dads more involved, in this case, in going to maternal health visits or in not being involved in domestic violence. And so these guys on a volunteer basis go house to house, do theater, these kinds of things. And we've seen more men involved in maternal health visits, less violence in the home, more dads involved. So I think that it doesn't matter what income level you're at. There is a way to do this. I think this is proof of that. And there are other examples from around the world. But whether you can do it through legislation or leave, that's what will vary. All right, well, we have time for some questions. If people out here in the crowd have questions they want to ask us, if not, we'll just stare at you. Yes, in the back. Ariane Higavish, Institute for Women's Policy Research. I have one comment on low income families. I think if you look, for example, at California, where paid family leave became available, you can see because of the economic necessity, the uptake for low income fathers was, I think, as high or certainly not much lower than for middle income or high income fathers. So I think the economic issue, the helping families or helping fathers maintain their bread winner role while they're doing that is enormously important. And on some things, one needs statues or some way to provide this, as you say, the business case is much less strong for people who are seen as replaceable in the labor market. And I think, similarly, you find also because it's the low income families where everybody, if families are co-residential, where everybody has to work, I think if you look at time use data you also get more sharing in a way. So I just think it's to keep the economic issue in mind when designing policies but also in the way we presented. My question is much more data related. What, you know, to improve the evidence base, even to know how many fathers take leave, what do you, where can we insert this? I know the SIP had a module on first time mothers which is about to go, should we have a module on first time fathers, you know, should we include those data in the American Community Survey? What's your kind of dream to say, okay, let's have an evidence base which is a little better than minus three at the moment? Well, one of the places where people looked to initially get evidence about whether mothers were taking time off was the current population survey. That's done, that's the data set that's used to collect unemployment statistics and they ask, what were you doing in the last two weeks? And so you could get information from mothers about whether they had a job but were not at work and so forth and so kind of expanding that. I mean, so there's a base for you to be able to see what's happening to both men and women. But I don't know that anyone's used that for men. That's interesting, so it just now occurred to me. Maybe I'll have to take a look at it. But I think something like the SIP as well, maybe asking explicit questions about paternity leave and the one study that I had mentioned, the napalmnasci and well-fogul study had used the data from the early childhood longitudinal study, birth cohort. So it was focused on a very young children, actually from birth on and asked a lot of questions about involvement of both parents right around birth. So I think that's kind of an ideal vehicle but it was a single snapshot. So having something like that on a more ongoing basis would help us not only understand what parents are doing with kids but also the well-being of kids and the kinds of programs that are affecting them. I'm all for more data. Great. Hi, Elaine Soekerman of Gender Action and also Promando's Board. I wanted to just answer the IWPR women's question with another thought. And that is I'm also involved a founding member of the Caring Economy Campaign and it is collecting data of the type that you're seeking through something called the Social Wealth Economic Indicators. They're pretty new. Some of you have heard of Rianne Eisler. She founded this. She wrote The Real Wealth of Nations and The Chalice and the Blade, et cetera. And I think that you could find these new social wealth economic indicators that originally have been gathered for developed countries because the data is more accessible. The data are more accessible but also we're moving toward expanding them to developing countries. So you could find that on the Caring Economy Campaign website. Look at us all working together to solve these problems. We have time for one more question or comment from Anne-Marie Slaughter. Just a quick comment and a very specific question and the quick comment is just, I think it is important to emphasize that the whole model where dad disappeared and was not around his kids and worked in an office all day is a function of post-industrial revolution economics. Prior to that, I mean, where you had certainly agricultural economics but even low level sort of guild manufacturing, that was often done out of a household, right? And we're moving back to that in many ways as young as in the businesses where both parents can be at home and can be engaged in different ways while working. So I think it's important to note this has not been since time began. This is a particular historical artifact. But my question is to Joe and it builds on your question about how you make this cool for men because I completely agree that as long as guys think this is women's work or this is emasculating in some way, you've got a much harder chance. So how do you, so one thing, a guy with a baby is often a chick magnet but that's probably kind of tough to advertise. So what is the way we say this is cool? And I'll give you one example and I'd love your example. I came home and said to my 18 year old who's then 16, I was talking about a woman who had said she's a billionaire and she had two guys turn her down when they found out how much money she made and finally Sarah, the woman who founded Spanx and finally she's now married. And I said to my sons in the morning, said, so like if you were gonna marry a woman who was a billionaire, would that be a problem that she'd out earn you? And they looked at me like I had two heads. So they were like, but my oldest son said, mom guys who are worried about that are really insecure about something else. And I thought that's great, you know, that's the way but how do we do that? How do we make it cool?  We try to, and this is kind of underhanded, right? You gotta, I'm an ex-offender, right? And a recovering addict. So some of my default is back to those old days, not to the bad side of it, but just the strategies that happen on the street. And so when we engage guys, we always want them to understand that they're in a safe environment and they can explore, they can make mistakes. And we actually do things that kind of change the narrative, you know, and I think we're gonna see an example of that at the end. It's only one minute long, but it will, when you see it, you will get a sense of the tactics that we employ to be able to get guys to understand that it's okay to really think about how you're gonna engage your family and particularly your child. And this whole notion of coming from the street where you gotta be a tough guy all the time, that that's not necessarily the way in which, you know, you have to carry yourself, but you gotta give guys the opportunity to create a new training ground. So many of the guys that I'm talking about that I work with, they've grown up without dads in their lives. That notion of manhood is skewed by what they see within pop culture, what they see on the street, what they get from their peers, which is often a similar experience. And so changing that dynamic, just because you turn 21, there's no switch that you will automatically flip and you take on these other attributes that are much more mature and lead into nurturing. The problem is we don't have enough spaces in our country where men can really take advantage of those kind of conversations, like, you know, what Mike was talking about in this loan program where at the end, they kind of talk about, you know, response of fathering. I do think that there's a lot of promise with, you know, President Obama's recent announcement of my brother's keeper, there's a strand of parenting in there. We should uplift that. We should really force the administration and others to really look at that critically as a vehicle for us to think about how you change that narrative. Because if you don't, I think what we're gonna have is to continue to have struggles and conversations like this in over the years. We'll be back here in five or 10 years and we'll have incremental change. But, you know, we won't have the kind of substantive change that we wanna have to, you know, we wanna take some of the burden off of you. You know, you ladies, I'm gonna say you guys, that would have been totally not cool, right? But I do think that we play a complementary role. It's not that dads are any better than moms or any better than dads. We pay a complementary role to one another, whether we live together or not. All right, thank you to our panelists and thank you all for listening. They think that it means I need to contribute financially. They just don't believe that changing diapers is a part of parenting.   We only got 30 minutes. Yep. Whoa.  Chris looks like he's in the front. He's doing well. Everybody's working gently and proficiently cause this is the loving care and child that they love so much. It's not a neck brace, man. Come on, man.  Three, two, one. We're flipping the script a little bit now. You know, now we want, we want men not just to be providers and protecters. We want them to be nurturers.


This research paper proposes a novel methodology for using electroencephalography, e.g., to guide mental imagery, MI, for improving motor skills. This technique involves tracking changes in brain activity during motor skill acquisition and then using this information to guide MI during neurofeedback and F. The authors found that this method can reduce errors in tracing tasks by up to 20%, suggesting that it may be useful for improving motor skills. Additionally, they demonstrated that the improvements in motor skill are retained even after the neurofeedback session has ended. This article was authored by Nader Riahi, William Ruth, Ryan C. N. Darcy, and others.


onths That's the way I look at it So you're doing good, man You're doing good.  We've had these conversations andres.  I'll show you guys Beat him up says a very wide His views are all over now.  Let me give you an example of a channel that's always growing And keeps views consistently high unrelated lioness tech tips lioness tech tips So 15.6 million they're always growing. They're always gaining subscribers they don't have to worry about not gaining subscribers and Look 1.3 million 1 mil 2 mil 1.4 2.2 1.3 1.9 because they're measuring in millions Of views 2 million 2.1 1.9 1.9. They'll occasionally have a spike video Uh, let me see what their spike video is though. They'll um Because they're did you see they're doing between basically 1.5 and 2.5 million views of video Um, and yes, that's a huge shift But they they'll get a spike video too. Like if I if I just if I organize their videos by most popular Um, you'll see I mean, yeah a lot of videos, but just trying to find one that was like in the last year I know they have one here like two years ago. This was 9.7 mil Uh one year 8.9 So like they'll have a spike video once in a while 8.3 8.2 So again, they'll have a spike video once in a while, but they're very consistent and they're always growing. Okay But then you'll look at like beat them ups And dude Nothing against wood man. Cool. Good never met him a cool, dude His views though will fluctuate quite a bit. So you have 182 000 on his tears of the kingdom review Now one nice thing for him is it's an hour long video. You can see I watched the whole thing Uh, so what you'll notice is Um, even though this is lower views, he might have made way more money on this than he did on any of these other videos Because it's so long the average watch time on this might be like a half hour So Uh, that being said, even if it's only like 20 minutes, that's such a long average watch time He probably made a lot of money on that. Um, anyways 365 386 784. So look at this. Look at this fluctuation going from 182 up to 784 But that's a pretty big fluctuation I'm just getting an idea. So it looks like he bottoms down in like the 140s 180 so down in the 100s spikes at seven eight Uh, and sits right around 300 to 500 Okay It's a wide variance compared to the numbers that we're at. Okay. Here's a 1.1 mil spike Uh, so I guess that you know at 1.4 mil spike So he's got his spikes in there, but yeah 300 to 500 go back seven months ago And 222 839 440 329 248 291 503 227 210 282 262 205 He's got a lot of in the twos. He's got some of the threes. He's got a 94k So In some ways you can say He's doing better But what you'll notice is he doesn't upload very often Two days ago two weeks ago three weeks ago month ago one month one month two month two month two month two month two month three I mean, what is this four videos in a month? So he doesn't upload as often now. He used to upload way more Um, because like look we barely scrolled down and we're in seven months There was there was a time when he uploaded way more. I feel like there was a period where he was getting way more views to um Yeah I mean getting mill back hit back here Oh 178 333. I mean look at this. This is three years ago and look at look at the numbers he was doing 2.4 mil. I mean So like I I would say it's safe to say that he hasn't even though he's he's like a you know creep it up to 2 million subscribers I wouldn't say that his views have really gotten better like even to look at three years ago. I mean You know, I I just don't I don't really see a growth where like If I was if I was at his level right now Um, if I was at 1.7 million subscribers Dude all my videos better be getting 500k plus My goal would be every video gets 500k plus now It's easy to say that when I'm not there and I doubt he cares I doubt he cares you want to know why he doesn't care You know much money you make on these views Like he doesn't have to care Look when you're when you're getting 200 300 400 k of video you really at some point the money just doesn't matter And you might not care about growing he doesn't have a very big team. He's got an editor himself and his wife Uh, he doesn't have a big team So at some point you you might get so big that you just don't care about growing anymore And I think that's probably what happened to him years ago As beat him up was got got so popular and got so many views and was making so much money He just stopped caring to grow now. My personal take is I want to keep growing I don't want to stop growing Because I have other plans. I have other channels. I want to launch I have other teams I want to build so if I was at his level I would still want to keep growing because there's more things I'd want to do Uh, but that's not everyone's like that where they have other things they want to do Now someone asked me how much do you make I'm like 400 k So I don't know if I have any videos that I could show that with Um, let's look at uh, look at some of my my biggest ones here. Um Let's see, uh, I don't think ads return none We didn't have ads at that time That's the problem. Now here we had ads on this one. I think Here's 320 k On an eight minute video definitely at ads because I made sure it was eight minutes So let's see what this one did Four years ago Oh, it's last 28 days There you go. So You know, you get you get 450 500 dollars A video And that's not counting that, you know, if you're getting that every video you're getting views every day. So you're just Plus he does live streams on twitch plus he's got sponsors Now granted that was four years ago ads you actually make more on ads now than back then um, so I'm actually Actually kind of curious Uh Shorts, okay I'm actually kind of curious Uh, if I have something more recent like that was 450 Um Like what this one do? This was this year 178,000 How'd this do compared to the remember that last one was 450 for 300 plus k Told you you make more today So if I made one on 178, let's say beat him up doubles that he made a grand basically On a video today Like I told you the ad revenue is bigger today Than four years ago. So I just made that same 450 I must views Yeah, so kind of gives you an idea Um, that he's probably make he's probably making close to a grand on average a video if not more And that's without sponsors So and it's it's interesting, you know, it's just behind the scenes stuff So he's doing well for himself Yeah, a grand grand video. That's good. It's very good. It's very good You Nintendo land see if they're growing Hey, I mean I was Dude, you do you do this last year. I was shrinking. So I'm not like perfect Any stretch of the word I just I try and Hope it works out Uh, Nintendo land's good. I like Nintendo land Put more ads in your video. I'm not gonna force more ads in YouTube YouTube already right now Um, does he add in Nintendo podcast patreon gets 5 000 a month? Yeah, I know Their podcast gets a lot of money the Nintendo podcast their patreon's massive on that Yeah And I don't even think they have ads turned on I don't think I've ever seen an ad. Let me let me check. I don't have Let me let me uh Click on their most recent episode Do they have ads? No, they do not have ads on their podcast. He's silently counting. So there's no ads Now that was a stream one though. Let me find one that wasn't streamed There should have been ads though Z. Yeah, no, so they they don't run ads on their youtube channel for it So all so so they're not so even though you they're they're getting like these, you know, 46 43 42 I know roughly what that would make with our long shows But uh, they're not running ads So they're running the show off a patreon only and patreon's making it so they don't need ads So they I don't know how they split the money or how it works because obviously bob and and um, you know, let's make plenty of money So chances are they use that money for like the production team editing You know, they probably pay an editor and um A producer to be there to manage the audio and stuff during the show So, yeah Maybe they probably I wouldn't be surprised if bob and you know, I'm basically gonna take any of the money from that patreon Because neither one of them need it I want h.m.k. Oh h.m.k. I feel bad for h.m.k He probably doesn't care. He makes he makes a decent amount streaming h.m.k. He's a good buddy even No one personally, uh, but he 170k Uh subscribers, but he doesn't a hit his views are not um, I would say not fantastic Uh today, you know, you see 3.9 and 6.2 1.8 4.3 10 6.8 3.1 10 6.9 8.4. I mean This is an antenna direct 7.8 21 Uh 3.5 10. So like I'm doing more views on average and he is I mean, I would say heck andre's restart might be doing more views on average in him But then you go back, uh seven months ago And I mean look nine days 5.6 8.1 12 11 9.2 there's a low one. There's a low one 5.5 13 44 5.8 39 6.2 14 14 So so he shrunk Um and that's fine. He basically peaked and I think he's kind of good with it Uh, he does have a pretty decent following over on twitch He does a lot of twitch streams. Yeah, he's got 41.4 k um on his twitch streams As he does quite a few of them seven hours ago four four days ago five days ago seven days ago He does a lot of streams And you'll see these viewership counts don't matter. These are um, like you're seeing 48 here You're seeing 800. That's not how many that's uh VOD views video on demand views That's not how many views the actual stream got um but like I mean see his chat going there He he he does very well. I don't know how many subs he has What he does he does very well on on twitch See he's got all these these sponsorships these partners gamer subs ewin elgato twitch prime Yeah, so he's got a bunch of sponsorships and He does he does very well on twitch So he probably makes most his money on twitch these days Rather than youtube, which is fine Do those want to make money playing video games, man?  Yeah, and we don't know I have no idea See, I don't I don't really like to speculate on what sponsorship deals are like for the nintendo podcast or beat-em-ups I have no idea when you're at the level they're at I don't even know what a sponsorship deal looks like Like what are they saying yes to at their level? I know what I charge at my level I like i'm trying to imagine if I got this sort of views they did like what would a sponsorship deal look like for me Like what would I be charging? You know mr. Beast is spoken about how he's got a problem at his level mr. Beast You know basically the biggest content creator in the world And his problem is If a sponsorship comes at him and offers like two million There's only so many companies that can pay that amount of money. He's he brought this up on the pockets He said he's running through a problem where his channel's so big That the level of sponsorship per video That his videos are worth most can't afford it He's literally charging super bowl commercial money and there's very few people That can pay that very few companies that can pay that So he said he's actually running into a problem where he's had a very difficult time getting sponsors That can pay the value of the video. It's crazy, man Imagining getting to a point where your your channel is so big you've outpaced the wallets of sponsors That's insane, man, uh scott the was an arlo We'll take one. Well, we're glad to have both quick view wise and then we'll wrap up the stream. That's going to be it for me. Um Well, let's glance at arlo See what he's doing So Man, he's actually uploaded quite a bit this week. Yeah, you know why We know why I mean there's marry card eight and somebody in pigment for come on. I mean, we know what's up Pikmin. Yeah impressions Anyways, 61 83 134 236 168 160 Oh, this is like a podcast I suppose So we'll we'll discount the podcast because that's an abnormal content for him 83 134 236 168 160 277 187 246 278 256 68 Uh, that we'll discount that that's a Well, that's one of those typical videos, I guess So I would say you know outside of like a video like this these long ones He probably it looks like he bottoms out around 130 140 ish range And he top he tops out about 280 probably averages around 200 000 of video I'm gonna go seven months ago Let's see 198 170 541 That was a review of Pikmin 115 136 172 152 184 440 577 45 202 143 so he's peaking higher But I would say his average views are are about the same. He's peaking higher But his average videos are in the 100k range or 150 180 k range So I would say he's peaking higher. So his averages probably work out to the same But he's probably getting more views per video today Um, just kind of looking He had 236 277 246 278 265 like he's probably getting more views average per video But I mean it's close I would say he's pretty much stagnated Um, what's the subscriber still at 673? um Go here Let's see here I mean he hasn't gained a thousand subscribers at all this month yet Uh, where's his subscriber monthly gained subscribers 7500 3000 I mean, it's pretty consistent. Yeah, I mean it's pretty consistent. He's had a couple spikes here Last year, but it's pretty consistent I mean, it looks like it looks like he had an up year Last year and a bit of a down year this year subscriber growth wise So he hasn't grown as much this year as last year Oh, wait. No, this is last year because if this is january 22 No, so last year was a down year This year looks like it's on back on the rise last year was a down year for him The year before was an up year You can kind of see what subscriber growth And then I can glance at scott the was By the way, what happens is you get to a certain size and you what you're seeing like rgt Or you're seeing this with um, spawnwave arlo probably scott the was Beat them up. It's like when you get to a certain size. Sometimes you're just happy there Like you're not really trying to grow anymore So you slow down and you're just sort of happy with where you're at um anyways 2.4 482 I probably didn't feel good. That's the best of scott the was I suppose 1.1 1.3 1 mil 1.1 1 mil 1 mil 236 1.5 307 1.5 3 mil 1.8 1.5 2 mil 1.6 2 mil 4 mil 1.6 1.4 I mean, it's just kind of consistent in here every now and then a 4 mil otherwise like in the 1 mil 1.5 um You can argue he might be doing slightly less views because Um, this is like 1.1 1.3 1 1.1 1 1 so you could argue he's probably getting a little bit less views overall But pretty consistent. I mean You know, he's basically doing linus tech to numbers except linus does that every day Versus, you know, like once a month Or once every few months But I'm out of youtube expert. I'm just this is just how I measure. Oh really? I got it mods. Don't worry. The mods are probably gone. All right. Well, that's gonna do it for the stream anyways Uh Band night guy Have a good rest of your night guys. We'll catch you in the next video tomorrow sometime


Hi, Myself Dr. Ramakrishna. In this video, we are going to talk about the radiation related to breast cancer. In breast cancer patients, who should be radiated? And which medicines are available? So, what are the new medicines? Everyone should be radiated. Let us try to understand these questions. In breast cancer, radiation is an important part. In breast cancer, patients are present at any stage. They do any type of surgery. So, radiation is important for us. So, in the previous video, in breast cancer, early stage, locally advanced breast cancer and stage 4, metastatic. In early stage, in breast cancer, most of the patients do breast conservation surgery. In breast cancer, a part of the body is formed. A part of the body is removed. It is called lumpectomy. Lumpectomy is to remove the lump. So, in anyone, they do breast conservation surgery. Lumpectomy is to remove the lump. Lumpectomy is to remove the lump. Lumpectomy is to remove the lump. In anyone, they do BCS. They do one type of radiation therapy. Some of the patients have already done the surgery. And there is a doubt about the other type of radiation. Many patients have doubts about it. Lumpectomy is to remove the lump. After removing the lump, most of the patients have more chances to recover the breast cancer. Plus, there is a chance to recover the cancer somewhere else. So, after lumpectomy, there is a 100% chance to do radiation therapy. So, doctor, after lumpectomy, there is a chance to do radiation therapy. So, before removing the lump, there is a chance to do radiation therapy. So many patients have doubts about it. Lumpectomy is to remove the lump. So, in early stage diseases, there is a chance to do mass-tectomy. There is no chance to do mass-tectomy in other patients. In the case of early stage diseases, there is a chance to do mass-tectomy in other patients. In the case of early stage diseases, the process of mass-tectomy is going to be very different. ాోవిందిలావర్త్లుగాళింన్న్పె మారిలాయాన శిమమన్యానాడిండింాతైనంద౟రానుమురాస్ని మనంము మార్టానానామానిందరిందానానానీా. పాప్యారం బూస్లుత్లాయంన్చ్త్న్. కూన్లులెచిని సికూనినిన్సంందినింది. మైద్ది సిన్లం సిసికూదిను. నానా పాటాల్డాలవసిల్రిల్పార్వనీనీ పాలికెల్చని సిస్శిక్పపాల్. సానానిస్నిలాళాతానినౚ వాళుమ్లి రినాభానిందిసిసింట్షనిని. మాంత్ట్ట్స్ ప్న్ట్య్త్త్నీత్. న్ణతిమిత్ట్దితాలునే కార్ఎస్ట్. న్త్టంపోస్రుచారినూన్గ఍త్న్ ర్పోరిక్఍ట్ మత్త్యా 경우에는�్. మారాదారరిల౑నెయట్త్రందిందినినినిని ఠిమిల్రంచిండినెచిదినందినిలూత్రందినిందిరినినెపికికానందింధిది.  языimb variant  языา opleığa  amended


Welcome back. So, after dealing with the problem involving the second law in the last snippet, let us deal with a similar problem not with a compressor, but with a nozzle. So, let me just read out the problem. The inlet conditions for the nozzle of a steam turbine are 60 bar 350 degree centigrade. The exit conditions are 10 bar 0.9 dry. What do we have to find out? A, if the steam flow rate is 10000 kilogram per hour, determine the exit velocity and area and B is the process possible or impossible. Why? What is the limiting exit state and exit velocity? Assume that the exit pressure is fixed. Now, how do we approach this? The last time around, we had figured out that the process was not possible and gone ahead and done a lot of calculations using the first law. Now, let us first find out, since it is easier to find out whether the process is possible, we will go ahead and do that first. Now, you will notice that there is nothing mentioned regarding whether the process is adiabatic or not, that is whether there is heat transfer or not. But right now, since there is nothing given, we can only assume that q dot is 0. And if q dot is equal to 0, we know that because s dot p has to be positive, the exit entropy has to be greater than the inlet entropy. So, let us go ahead and do those calculations. So, we will do it systematically, draw the diagrams, figure out whether something is possible or not. This is our nozzle and we had inlet 60 bar 350 degrees centigrade and we had exit at 10 bar and 0.9 dry, which means the dryness fraction is 0.9 and m dot is given as 10000 kilogram per hour. So, because we know the inlet state 60 bar 350 degrees centigrade, it is in the superheated zone. We look up the superheated tables at 6 megapascal because that is what is 60 bar 350 degrees centigrade and we get that h i should be equal to 3043.9 kilojoule per kg. And similarly, s i is equal to 6.3357 kilojoule per kg kelvin. What about exit? So, this is at inlet. What about exit? We know that it is 10 bar, which means this is 1 megapascal and it is 0.9 dry. So, we can find h easily. This would be 0.9 multiplied by h fg at 1 megapascal plus hf at 1 megapascal and we would get this as 2575.66 kilojoule per kg. So, this is h e. We would go ahead and do a similar exercise, 0.9 multiplied by s fg plus s f and we realize that we get this as 6.1404 kilojoule per kg kelvin. Now, we draw our H s diagram. This is our inlet to the nozzle. So, let me write this p i, this is p e, this is i and we would have expected an ideal process to go like this if it was adiabatic and we are assuming q dot equal to 0 because nothing is mentioned about it. So, in that case, we expect that s e should be greater than s i or the process should have been in this fashion. So, this should have been e star and this should have been e. But what do we notice? We notice that s i is 6.3357 and s e is 6.1404 both of these kilojoule per kg kelvin and s e is actually less than s i which means that we are expecting that the process would go in this fashion and this is e given. So, this is just not possible because we have assumed q dot is equal to 0 which would have meant that s e should have been greater than s i and we find that s e is actually less than s i which means this is not possible. What would have been possible is if exit e was equal to e star or greater than e star. So, let us go ahead with our calculations assuming that we get s e equal to s i that is our ideal exit state. So, in this case go ahead assuming s e equal to s i which means e equal to e star. So, if this is so, we realize that let me draw this diagram again. This is what we are getting. So, we know what s is here. So, let us just find out that s e is also equal to 6.3357 kilojoule per kg kelvin. So, this means we would need to find our dryness fraction here x. So, we will just go ahead and find it. We will use 6.3357 and subtract the sf at this point which is 2.1381. We will look at the tables for 1 mega Pascal and divide by sfg which is 4.4470 and this will turn out to be 0.949. So, that means that e star would have been a more drier state than what was given in the problem. And in fact, if the process is actually irreversible, it will be even more drier and we should not be surprised if it was completely dry. So, what is h? Now it is very simple. We use this x multiplied by hfg which is the same hfg as before and add hf. So, both of these are at 1 mega Pascal and we get this as 2664.1 kilojoule per kg. And this should be a quantity that is greater than the previous quantity. So, this is he. We also would like to calculate the specific volume that is because we have been asked to find out the velocity and the area. We get ve here which is the specific volume. We go ahead and do a similar procedure. I will not do it here. It is 0.18352 meter cube per kg. So, now we find out m dot. We convert it into kgs per second instead of the kilogram per r units that have been given. So, I just have to divide by 3600 and I will get 2.7778 kilogram per second. Now we can write our first law. We have q dot minus w dot s is equal to m dot he minus hi plus ve squared by 2 minus vi squared by 2 plus g ze minus zi. We realize that we have assumed this is adiabatic. So, this is 0. This is a nozzle. No work is expected. This is 0. And nothing has been mentioned about the heights. It is a good assumption to go ahead and assume that this is 0. In this calculation, we realize that we do not need the mass flow rate now because all we get is he minus hi should be equal to vi squared by 2 minus ve squared by 2. Now, we realize that we do not know the inlet velocity, but in such nozzles, it is a good assumption that it is a reasonably negligible velocity compared to the exit velocity. In fact, the nozzle is meant to accelerate the fluid to a higher velocity. So, we say that this is nearly equal to 0, which means that we get ve squared by 2 is equal to hi minus he. So, all we have to do now, calculate this.  And we see that we have to convert this into joule per kg. So, we first substitute the values. Hi was 3043.9 and he. Now, we have calculated as 2664.1. And we multiply this by 1000. So, that our units are correct. We need it in joule per kg. And we get now ve should be equal to 871.55 meters per second. This is a pretty large velocity. And now, since we have m dot should be equal to a e ve by specific volume at the exit. We know m dot, this is 2.7778. We know this, this is 871.55. We know this, this is 0.18352. We substitute these values and get the exit area as 5.849 multiplied by 10 to the power minus 4 meter square. So, we have made a few assumptions here, but those are reasonably logical for the nozzle. We have assumed it is adiabatic. There is no change in inlet and exit heights and the inlet velocity is 0. Of course, we first figured out whether the problem as given was possible. We discovered it was not possible. We figured out what was the limiting state and went ahead by solving for that limiting state. So, these are the answers for the limiting state. They are not for the problem as given. We are trying to find out what the velocity at the exit is and the area at the exit is for the limiting state. Thank you.


So what do we know about Paul? First of all, we know this is indisputable that Paul never met Jesus. Paul never met Jesus. Paul writes by far more books in the Christian Bible than anyone else. Some people believe that he wrote 13 out of the 27 books in the Christian Bible. It may only be seven. There are six that are disputed, but no one wrote six. No one wrote 13. So the majority of anything that comes out of the Christian Bible is a product of Paul. But Paul never met Jesus. That we know for a certainty. Number two, Paul himself reports that he violently persecuted the followers of Jesus. That's what Paul tells about himself. That earlier in his life he would go around arresting them, throwing them into prison. He was there when Stephen, the first Christian martyr, was stoned to death and he was part of that. So Paul himself says, I violently persecuted the followers of Jesus to the death. That was what we know about Paul. Number three, Paul claims to have had a mystical encounter with Jesus. Where Jesus allegedly appeared to him and appointed him as a special apostle to the Gentiles. We know that when Jesus was alive, Jesus did not preach to Gentiles. Jesus said that his mission was exclusively to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Jesus told his followers, go not to the cities of the Samaritans or the cities of the Gentiles. I'm only sending you, Jesus says, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Paul claims now that after Jesus died, he allegedly now said, well now we have a universal mission to reach everyone and Jesus made me the special emissary to the Gentiles. That's what Paul claims. So again, Paul never met Jesus. Paul tells us that he persecuted the followers of Jesus. Paul claims to have had a mystical vision where Jesus appeared to him and appointed him as a special apostle to the Gentiles and Paul claims that he has ongoing encounters with Jesus. That Jesus always speaks to him. That's Paul's story. However, we see from the Christian Bible itself and this is very clear. Not just from the Christian Bible, but later Christian sources from the second century that there was lots of skepticism, not from the outside world, not from the rabbinical community. There was lots of skepticism from the followers of Jesus, meaning from the Jesus movement, there was a lot of skepticism about Paul and even more than that, a lot of opposition to Paul. So when you read the Christian Bible, you'll see almost in every book there are people that are following Paul around and making trouble for him. They're questioning him. They're disputing him. They're questioning his legitimacy, his credibility. How do we really know that Jesus spoke to you? I mean, he's got people on his tail constantly challenging him, questioning him. He's got lots of opposition. Just a simple example. I mentioned a few moments ago that Paul claimed that Jesus appointed him as apostle to the Gentiles. Now, the first crisis you could say in the history of Christianity, the first time there was ever a big debate in the Christian movement, was in the 15th chapter of the Book of Acts and in this chapter what comes up for discussion is it's an obvious problem because Jesus never really taught them anything about non-Jews and now Paul's been running around the world converting non-Jews and getting them to believe in Jesus. So the big question became, what do we do with these Gentiles? What's supposed to happen to them? Are they supposed to convert to Judaism? Are they supposed to do something else? They don't know. What is supposed to happen with these non-Jews that Paul has been converting? So there was a group in Jerusalem, which was where the movement was based in Jerusalem, that was saying, look, if they want to join our group, they have to get circumcised if they're men, they have to observe all the commandments of the Torah, they have to convert to Judaism, that there was such a voice. And others said, no, they don't need to do that. Now, if Jesus appointed Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, what should they have done at this meeting in the Book of Acts chapter 15? It's a no-brainer. They should have said, because here you have the leaders of the group, you have John and Peter and James, James is the brother of Jesus. What they should have said is, well, we don't know, but let's go ask Paul, right? If they believed that Jesus appeared to Paul and appointed him as the machar, there's the apostle to the Gentiles, if they believed that, they would have said, okay, this is your, this is your department, Paul, you should tell us, what do we do here? They didn't do that. They didn't give Paul any credibility. They decided among themselves, and the final decision was made by the brother of Jesus, James, who we know was actually the leader of the Jesus movement until about the year 62, for about 30 years. So we see from this interesting story that even though Paul is claiming to have had this experience where Jesus appeared to him and appointed him as the apostle to the Gentiles, the movement in Jerusalem didn't accept that. Okay, so what is their problem with Paul? Why didn't they accept him? What was their reluctance? What was their hesitancy? So one problem is, again, they probably say to themselves, who in the world is this Johnny come lately, who never met Jesus, and now he's just coming to us with these tales that Jesus appeared to him. How do we know? And that might have been part of the skepticism. A second problem is, they never heard from Jesus, meaning that Jesus appointed the apostles. You only became an apostle because Jesus said you're going to be an apostle official, right? They're going to be 12 of you, but they never heard Jesus appointing Paul anything. Number three, all they knew about Paul was that he was a big problem. All they knew about Paul was that for years he was persecuting us to the death. That's what they knew about him. So now all of a sudden he says, well, Jesus appeared to me and was supposed to just say, of course, of course he did. The other issue was that they were hearing reports about what Paul was actually teaching when Paul was running around the diaspora, ancient Greco-Roman places like Greece, and what they were hearing was that Paul was teaching people there's no longer a need to observe the Torah. Now, as followers of Jesus, Jesus never said that. Jesus consistently spoke about the importance of keeping the Torah. And they say to Paul, they challenged him. When Paul came back to Jerusalem, he came once in a while, he collected charity to bring it to the group in Jerusalem who were very poor. They confronted him and they said, Paul, what is this we're hearing about you that you're teaching even the Jews in the diaspora that they don't have to circumcise their children or observe the commandments? What's going on? So this bothered them about Paul. And the truth is that when we study Paul's writings, this seems to be what he speaks about. Paul says numerous times you are no longer under what he calls the curse of the Torah. Now, what's this curse of the Torah? When we read about the Torah, in the Torah, it only speaks about the Torah as being a blessing, as being about more precious and gold, sweeter than honey, the most delicious thing in the world. And it speaks about the commandments as being eternal forever. So wait a second. What we know from the Torah is that the commandments are eternal, and they're the most precious thing in the world. And we heard the same message from Jesus. And now we're hearing from you, Paul, that you're talking about, you're no longer under the curse of the law. What's going on? So it wasn't just rumors in Lushenhara, evil speech that they were hearing about Paul. They had his own teaching, and he teaches this consistently throughout his writings. Paul is teaching that the commandments are no longer obligatory. Now, many Christians will dispute this, and they'll say, no, Paul never taught anything against the observance of the Torah. And you'll find there are Christian scholars, especially people in the Jews for Jesus movement, who will say no such thing. Paul was pro-Torah. Well, so maybe we can discuss it. But I would say that we can get a vote out of Paul's followers, meaning you can parse Paul's words in different ways. I believe that Paul is clear about this issue. But for those who insist, no, Paul always insisted that the Torah has to be kept. So I would say, let's go look at the followers of Paul. Did they keep themselves Torah observant people? Do we see any of Paul's followers keeping the Torah? No, not at all. So it's clear that the followers of Paul didn't understand him as to be emphasizing the importance of Torah observance. And then we see in the second century, because the Christian Bible is basically written somewhere by the beginning of the second century. But in the second century, you have basically the continuation of the movement of Jewish people who believed that Jesus was the Messiah. They didn't believe he was God. They didn't believe he was born of a virgin. They simply believed that he was the Messiah. And they believed he would return soon to bring about the utopian messianic age. And they were certainly people that were Torah observant. We don't have their writings anymore because the church destroyed their writings as heretical. But what we do have are writings about these groups. They were called Ebonites. They were called Nazarenes. So we know about them from the church who wrote about them as heretics. And what we know about them is that they wrote about Paul. These Ebonites and Nazarenes wrote about Paul that Paul was a wicked person. They called Paul a heretic. Paul was an imposter. So we have the testimony of people who didn't trust Paul. And then interestingly, we see what did the followers of Paul? Paul was long dead by the second century. But how did the followers of Paul treat these Jewish followers of Jesus in the second century? Meaning that, again, we're not talking about groups outside of the Jesus movement. We're talking about the followers of Paul. And we're talking about the Jewish followers of Jesus, the ones that really are descendants of the original movement. We know that the Gentile church that emerged out of Paul persecuted the Ebonites and Nazarenes as I mentioned. They saw them as heretics. And they begin to consistently forbid any follower of Jesus from observing the Torah. They saw Torah observance as anathema. So I think the historical evidence points to the fact that Paul was no great Torah supporter. But Paul's greatest problem was establishing his credibility. Meaning, Paul is claiming that what he is writing is not just his own fantasies. Paul is claiming that he's writing revelations from God. Actually, all of the New Testament writers, they claim that they're receiving messages from God. But otherwise, why have any importance to it? The idea that Christians have is that their Bible is just like the Jewish Bible. And just like the Jewish Bible where prophets like Ezekiel and Zechariah and Isaiah who were prophets of God. And their words were preserved. So in the Christian mindset, Paul and Matthew and Luke and John, these are also people that are receiving the word of God. And we preserve their words in the Bible. So the question is for us tonight, what is the evidence that Paul is a prophet? How do we know that Paul heard from God? Even less than that. How do we even know that Paul heard from Jesus? Because again, it's not clear. I don't want to confuse the issue tonight, but it's not clear that Paul clearly taught that Jesus is God himself. Now that clearly became the belief in Christianity following Paul, meaning Paul's disciples clearly came to embrace the idea that Jesus is God, that Jesus created the world. It's not clear if Paul made that kind of direct identification. But it's clear that for Paul, Jesus is an elevated spiritual being, maybe angelic, maybe even existing before the world was created. It's not exactly clear. Paul does not spell it out. But even if we dismiss the idea that Paul is claiming that God spoke to him, he certainly says straight out that Jesus speaks to him. And the question is, how would anyone know? How would anyone know? At the end of the day, all we have are his assertions. That's all we have. Now in the Christian scriptures, and this is very fascinating, Paul struggles with this question of his credibility. You see it, it's black on white, that Paul is clearly on the defensive. Paul is clearly struggling with this question of his authenticity. And he has four different approaches other than just insisting and asserting. One thing Paul does, which I think is self-defeating, is Paul says numerous times, I am telling the truth, I am not lying. Now anyone who's familiar with the Hebrew Bible, the Jewish Bible, you would smile because you never see any of the true prophets of God, as Shakespeare would say, he thinks he does protest too much. Once someone has to keep on telling you, I'm telling the truth, I'm not lying, that would get my antenna up. And so Paul is constantly having to protest too much and say, I'm telling the truth, I'm not lying. I think that's a bit of a red flag. Number two, Paul basically tries to say, I'm telling the truth, and how can you know this? Because look at how much I've suffered and look how much I've been persecuted. Paul plays the pity card and by appealing to the fact that he suffered for his beliefs and he was persecuted for his beliefs, for Paul that proves who he is. For Paul that substantiates his claim that he speaks in the name of Jesus and or God. Now I would say that's not a very strong proof. You know people are sometimes persecuted for reasons other than the fact that they are prophets of God. Maybe Paul was just hard to get along with or obnoxious or difficult. And he seems to be that way by the way in the Christian Bible. He seems to wherever he goes, people don't like him. So maybe it was personal, but whatever it is, the fact that you were persecuted does not prove that what you believe is true. Number three, Paul threatens people. Meaning that when Paul is writing to the church in Corinth, he says, I'm going to deal with you harshly. He threatens people. That also to me is not a strong proof for anything. And another thing he does is to try to wow people by claiming that he has had dramatic supernatural experiences. He says in the book of Corinthians that he went up to the seventh heaven that he somehow was flying around in the spiritual realms. He tells these big tales. I believe in order to wow people, to impress people. But again, what's the proof that these things happened? It's again, just his assertion. So I did a little bit of poking around on the internet and I was curious, why do Christians today believe that Paul really should be taking at his word? What is the reasoning behind the unquestioned acceptance of Paul? And interestingly, I really couldn't find too much. All I found after hours of searching was one article by a Christian evangelist named Dom Stewart. And Dom Stewart wrote an article called, Five Reasons to Accept Paul's Writings. This is exactly what I'm interested in. Five reasons to accept Paul's writings. Let's see what his five reasons are. Number one, Paul believed his message to be divine. Paul believed that his message was divine. Well, every false prophet in history believed that their message was true. The fact that someone believes that their message is divine doesn't prove that God spoke to them. All it proves is that people are able to believe things even if they're not true. So the fact that, you know, I would say how convenient that, you know, that's why we should believe Paul because Paul believed it himself. I'm not impressed. Number two, Paul spoke about what he refers to as my gospel. Again, Dom Stewart I'm sure wrote this with a straight face. So this is another reason out of the five why we should accept Paul's writings because Paul refers to my gospel and I would say so what? Why does that prove that Paul is really receiving his messages from Jesus? Number three, Don Stewart says Paul received direct revelation from Jesus. Now, how do we know that? So Don Stewart gives a footnote for his point here. He refers to 1st Corinthians chapter 9 verse 1 where Paul says that I am an apostle and I saw Jesus. So what's the proof that Paul received communication from Jesus? Again, Don Stewart is saying because Paul claims he did. So basically all we're left with after Don Stewart's brilliant article is we should accept Paul at his word. He claims it and therefore it's so fact that it must be true. Number four, this is again Stewart's article. Why we should accept Paul's writing is number four. You know, after I read this, I was wondering maybe he's not serious. Maybe this article is a joke article. And then I realized, no, he's deadly serious. He is struggling to come up with reasons why anyone should accept Paul's writings. And Nebuch, this is the best he could do. So reason number four, he says, Paul says, if you disobey my gospel, you'll be disciplined. So the fact that Paul threatened people, that must be proof that Paul is the real deal. And number five, his writings were considered scripture during his lifetime. So the fact he claims, I don't believe this is true, by the way, because the Christian Bible was not canonized until centuries later. So I don't know why Don Stewart assumes that Paul's writings were considered scripture in his lifetime. But even if they were, so what? All it means is that there were some people in the time of Paul who bought into his claims. But why should we buy into those claims? Meaning that what is the proof that Paul really heard from God or even that he heard from Jesus? I would say that Paul has zero foundation, zero credibility. And I think that's exactly why, even among fellow followers of Jesus, Paul was always on the defensive. People questioned him. They were skeptical about him. And I believe for good reason.