For our first speaker of the day, day three, we have someone here whose name I have to pronounce on a Swayo. It seems like some people in Holland and Belgium call him Swa, but that's another interpretation. But Stefan is not really a German Catholic priest that you would be googling now. No. But he has as well a very special interest in networking security and measurement. Skills that this fellow nameholder that you can find googling on Wikipedia presumably is using as well. Swayo is a well-known player in the internet field here since more than two decades. And being involved in various programs, events and comedies, like if I pronounce this right, Euro 9 or Euro IX and Dinock. So some of you probably know him. He's as well a founding member and managing director of E6 for 15 years. So that makes him, besides being an old fart like me, he's above all a time traveler, an everlasting wanderer, an explorer, a learner and heavenly willing to share his experience and knowledge with all of us. So I have the pleasure to introduce to you Swayo. Please. Enjoy. Bonjour et bienvenue à la traduction de ce talk par Swayo. Aujourd'hui la traduction va vous être faite par Louis. Et on va parler du côté économique d'internet. Bonjour à tous. Je ne m'attendais pas à ce qu'il y a autant de monde qui viennent ce matin. Et ça fait plaisir de vous voir ici ce matin. Merci beaucoup. Comme on l'a dit avant, on va parler de la neutralité du net, net-outrality. C'est un gros buzzword. Je ne suis pas vraiment un juriste, je ne suis pas vraiment un économiste. Je viens vraiment du côté technique, du côté du réseau. On ne va pas vraiment parler du côté légal. Je crois qu'il y avait un talk à propos de ça ailleurs. Ce n'est pas surprise, c'est vraiment très à propos du réseau de la technique. Ok, de quoi va-t-on parler? Je vais vous montrer l'aspect commercial et comment est-ce que ça influence internet. Beaucoup de choses sont cachées dans le cloud, etc. On va essayer de trouver des stats, des nombres. Je vais vous donner quelques extraits d'arguments que certains avocats et opposants de la neutralité du net sont basés. Je me suis beaucoup inspiré d'un film qui s'appelle Toutes les Créatures sont les Bienvenus. All Creditors Welcome. Ok, je vais devoir me dépêcher un petit peu. J'ai dû réduire le nombre de slides que j'avais. Ok, on a aussi le plan. On va commencer avec ça. C'est marrant, mais le premier papier que vous pouvez regarder et qu'il y a une relation avec Internet s'appelle le réseau d'ordinateurs intergalactiques. C'était plus l'année 1963. Ensuite on a eu ARPANET, peut-être que certains d'entre vous ont entendu parler de ça. Et ça ressemble vraiment à l'Internet qu'on a aujourd'hui. Ça a fonctionné pendant très longtemps. Tenez 60, tenez 90. Peut-être que vous connaissez ça aussi sous le nom d'ARPANET qui veut dire défense ARPANET. L'ancêtre d'Internet était à l'origine d'un projet de la défense américaine. Après on a eu NSFNET, NSNET. Ok, c'était les beaux jours. Dans les beaux jours on pouvait cartographier Internet sur une seule page. Si vous regardez, en fait c'est une mode représentation de différentes universités. On voit plusieurs universités américaines, également quelques gros boîtes Internet, comme DEG, comme Xerox. Dès le début il n'y avait pas seulement des chercheurs, des géants dans l'académie, mais également des entreprises sur ces réseaux, sur ces tancettes d'Internet. Comme je l'avais dit, il y a NSFNET qui est vraiment des réseaux importants qui étaient pionniers. Researcher at this time has for every computer, if your computer was built, it has a new terminal on the desk. Think of it, five supercomputers center, three others. You have eight screens and every screen has a different command set. They are really trying to make it easier for them. It would be nice to have one terminal and a single interface on the machine to be able to connect to a lot of different machines. A single interface for multiple machines, it would be nice. NSFNET was founded in the 80s. We are talking about different V7s at the time, so 56 kbps, 1.5 mbps. At the time they introduced a third concept. So what is it here? It is a level within an organization or a system. It is a level within an organization or a system. You have two, which maybe you could think of big cities or regions. For example, in the middle we have a distribution layer. We can think that it could be cities. I think that the last lines below with the green circles correspond to the Internet sources. They are rather local to the city. So the purpose of NSFNET was mainly the research on education.  And it is interesting because NSFNET was one of the first networks with a charge of use, a regular use. Almost like a license. Because they wanted to make sure that the network was used as for the reason why it was built. So the NSFNET team had problems with localization. I imagine when they tried to deploy it locally in some cities and regions. All these old, really great stuff. Some have already heard of UCP and dial-in and even... We are talking about old Internet protocols, exchange of messages like Usenet. At the time, the app that was really interesting was KillerApplication. Without having 5 different emails and accounts to use your modem, you dial-in to 5 different platforms. You could use one and it was formed. A private is interesting because NSFNET really allowed to make different networks together. So to interconnect e-services, e-mail for example. Now we are going to talk about economics. First, introduction of economics. Economics covers both commercial and non-commercial aspects of the Internet. The Internet economy describes different aspects of how we build and how we operate and use the Internet. So what is NS? So NS, what was it? Advanced network service. It was founded by Merit Network, IBM and MCI at the beginning of the 90s. It was operated until the end of the 90s. There was non-commercial and non-commercial. The non-commercial part was the dorsal spine of NSFNET. Then you have the more commercial aspect called core. It was the dorsal spine of NSNET. It was used for both research and commercial use. Actually, it's three years ago. Actually, this is really true. It's a system that stopped in 2015. It's only three years ago. This kind of thing can live for a long time on the Internet. So we are obliged to start by talking about the DNS and the DNS core that we want to explain a little bit on the Internet. And we also explained the first mailing lists. The question is, who will pay for the Internet? Who will pay for this structure? Even if the governments have a lot of money, for example, there is a million dollars to fund ARPANET in the original. Safe for the soul, the general investment for the Internet was a million dollars. It was used as an investment that came from the US defense budget. And at the time, it was a lot of money. Anyway, we are talking about access points to the network. Ironically, it's the level above that we are talking about on the Internet. It's the point where the different networks interconnect. That was the problem in the first network. You had to use this kind of access point and have to be able to pay it. As you can see, the red clouds, think of it as the NSF backbone or the NS core. But it was not free to install that. Now, if we are interested in the blue box on the slide, they have to pay for access points to the network. It's actually, you pay twice for your traffic, because both parties paid for the traffic to access the network. But what's the other case? If you are both in the same data center, and maybe in the same network, you have to pay twice for the traffic to access the network. If you are both in the same data center, and maybe in the same data center, we don't have access to the network. Do we necessarily have to go to the NAP to transfer data to someone who is just next to us? If I put a cable between the two, we could transfer files like that. That's the starting point of the exchange idea on the Internet. Take all the connections between the data centers, and give them the opportunity to exchange from time to time, to transfer information without paying. That's it for the access points to the network. And what happened in Europe? The DFN was founded in Germany in 1985, based on OZI protocol, but I can't talk about it because it would be too long. But it's not compatible with the network we have today on the Internet. There were two university projects, UNIDO and X-Link, maybe the most difficult one for you to remember. And they already had a connection with ARPANET in the United States. And I also used to transfer by package. The DFN, they switched over later. It took them some time to accept. The DFN didn't use this transfer mode yet. They spent quite some time switching. So individual networks and association was founded in 1992. The individual network, IN, was founded in 1992. I didn't think it was that old, but I have to say good work, guys. It was a good thing that you were there at the time. The English guys already had in 1973. And the English people on their side in 1973 were already connected to ARPANET. 12 years before the German telecom community connected. Everybody knows Blitzchum Text? I think we all have seen some of the last German telecoms. Everybody knows BTX, I guess. And I was also related to Internet. They were 850 years old. They existed in 1983. So how did they connect to the Internet? Is it connected to the Internet? In fact, there were a lot of CD's that were sent, so they needed to be connected to the Internet. Through BTX, the BTX platform could be connected to the Internet. It was a great start in Germany. The other way was to go through the University network. I remember one day, they had him, Modem, at the University of Berlin. They had to make a number by hand to connect to an address. There were also other operators. It was the little green bottles we saw on the way I presented earlier. But there were also competitors. Some of them were Fidonet or Mailbox System. But after the Internet was established, it was over. The first day, the Internet day, how did it start? The new protocol was launched in 1983. It was the first time we used TCP and IP. The first email was received in September 1984. The first DO was in 1986. The protocol hypertext transfer dates back to 1989. The Internet for private customers. This is an important thing. It was the first time that the Internet was developed for individuals. It's important that it's the first time that we had an user interface that was easy to use. In 1995, we had the CD that allowed us to access the Internet in Germany. I don't think it was the best Internet navigators we had at the time. But it's already navigators. You can see the posters, you can access the Internet, etc.  That's why I'm fast. Okay, an explanation of the networks. Maybe for some of you, it's going to be in the U.S. because you already know all this. Let's look at how traffic flows on the Internet. It moves. We'll start in the middle with the heart. We still have the same third-party model. The connections between the big funders are good for some companies today. There are a lot of companies that do that today. Very international. The last company is there. Also not too many Asians. But this is actually the people who run the backbone. These companies really function on the Internet. All the international connections, for example. Then we have the second-party, just below. So you pay a little for that. And then the last third, the closest one to you, that's where you pay the most. I won't show you if we continue to go down. If you exchange things between yourself without going over the tiers above you, you can also use traffic to not be very expensive at all, even for free. And it's really one of the things for the internet to be built. It could be quite cheap there, but it's not a reality. Reality is in worse cases. There's a trend of traffic from tier 3 to tier 2 to tier 1, and then back again to tier 2 and tier 3. So you pay a lot of money. Sometimes you have to go through all the tiers and then it's really going to be expensive. In reality, the vast majority of the traffic is between tier 3 and tier 2. So... We often go through the intercontinental and internet doors. It's a lot more localized. And that's cool because it optimizes costs for both consumers and for internet users. As you can see, the costs are reduced over the course of time thanks to these economic optimizations. We can optimize where the traffic passes and optimize the costs in this way. It's a bit more complicated. We have four different types of equipment represented on this graph. We have 4G, wireless networks, radio networks. Then we have the fiber that goes to the house, the fiber that goes to the apartment. And then there's internet on it. Of course, we have the coaxial network used for television at the beginning. We compare up to a gigabit speed on this type of network. Then, of course, we have a classic network with fiber that originally has the telephone network. It's yours. We're talking about the last kilometer between what really gives you access to the internet, what really gives you access to the backbone, and between your homes. That's what we call the last kilometer. Don't forget that it doesn't really give you access to the internet. It just connects to your access to the internet, but it's not enough to give you access to the internet. Later, we'll talk a bit about ADSL. ADSL, SDSL. Now, we're going to talk a bit about content, what we're talking about. We're going to talk about content delivery. We're going to talk about content, so it's going to be videos, websites, everything you download on the internet. We can see the different continents. We have Europe, East Asia, the ocean, North America, South America. Everyone around here is talking about cloud servers, Azure, Amazon. They have big data centers, and these data centers are distributed all over the region. We realize that all these cloud services also try to locate their services that are close to their customers. We can see the blue arrows that really represent internet protocols, public internet. Public internet is really shared between everyone, between all these actors. Now, what we see today is that more and more these different internet service providers are interconnected in a completely private way. For example, you have a connected object with a lot of services. Then you connect to Frankfurt, to the Amazon, to Frankfurt, to WS. Then, where do you give your stock? Is it really in Frankfurt? Or is it in another country? In fact, you don't know. I think the reason you don't know is because these private connections you can't see them. You can't see. If you go through public internet, you can see that you take public internet. But when you go through private networks that connect different providers, you can't see it, it's hidden. In fact, it's completely different. This TR1, we had the red clouds in the presentation. And 90% of the traffic is these exchanges inside companies. Public internet uses a small part of the world traffic. If you look at the example of the transmission, we connect to the Universal API, to the information and re-transmit it. You can easily map it. The good idea was to make distribution networks of content. That's what we see on the red bars. We have put access points so it's faster to access it for the user. So there are some copies of these content. And so you can access the content from the location of the closest data. So it's faster and less expensive. Why do we need to go as fast for economic reasons? Then there are special cases. That's the VOD, audio and video at the request. Now it's not exactly the same. There are questions about DRM that are different from one country to another. There are even services that you can't have from one country to another. For example, the BBC service you can't access from Central Europe. And that's not because of Brexit. It's much older than that. The problem is that it's content that's for the most part of it. So now we have the services over the top, OTT. That means there are operators who don't have their own network. They don't have their own network of access. They produce content. It's not exactly the model where you produce content and you transmit it and then you pay. These people need a network that is already installed, necessary, and that goes to the consumer. And a network that is enough to supply this content and that the user can access it. So I define it a little bit. It's the search engines, it's the social networks, it's the German video. And where it's discussed a lot, particularly in Germany, is that those who transport these data don't really participate in the search engines. They are not the income, it can be cash, because people pay to access the internet. But there is another kind of money, it's our personal data. And for example that's what they use to make advertising. And that's very important. And on that the internet sources don't touch anything, and that interests them a lot to have access to. It's much more valuable than any cryptocurrency. Now that we have this model, we can do a diagram like the one I show. And in the center, you have the clad funds, CDN funds and other services that people do. But is it really true? And yes, that's a general diagram. If you're interested go and see the link I put, kaida.org, where there are a lot of alternatives. It dates from 2017. And you really see that structure in an onion is put in place. It becomes more and more dense the more you approach the center and you also see the center of some sites that produce the most content for the internet. Now, if we talk about the internet economy, we already have a little talk, but it will be the heart of the subject. And there are several questions that pose the question I don't know if you've ever seen this kind of cabinet like on the photo in Germany. All of this is regulated by the BNZR in Germany, the German control authority. It makes some obligations on the cables and on what kind of service should be able to access this kind of infrastructure. Well, the classic was that you were, the individuals were about 0.5 kilometers in so much access. 500 meters and so it was a little faster. But today, people want much more speed. So how do we do it? We have these these systems, these little equipment that are in the street. This is what we call bitstream. It becomes important with the operation of the vectoring. The fiber that you have there, it can not be used only by one operator this time. You have to put layer 3 on layer 3 is actually the IP, the internet layer. So you get a layer 2 connection there. And you have a connection on the second layer, not on the IP of the internet protocol. So all of this is public, you can keep on the site of regulation authority. All of this is public and you can see how much it costs to who. This is the price per month. By the way, these prices are all without vet, without MedVet steuer.  There are differences later. This is the price of production without tax. You don't know if it's not the same price as on your factory. When you look on the right side, you can see that it's progressively and slowly. If this is the connection to the link and the price of the connection to the first node, it doesn't move much, but the price of the internet has gone down a lot. It's interesting to see that it's not necessarily correlated with the last one. In the streets, in this kind of cabin in the streets, at least 300 meters from your house. In the past, I talked about Bitstream. The key point here is the vectoring. This is what will allow to go to an interconnection point. This is where you will connect to this access point. How does a carrier pay for it? Nothing like a flat rate.  And if you want more, you have the problem that you have to pay more for it. Later, I will have a way to show you this. This is how we are going to write it. And we see a contract extract with a mobile 5 megabits, with a bit of streaming. We see that the traffic is divided with a part on the streaming. And we also see that there are critical applications. The internet price is what it costs to be able to pay on the internet. The important part for us is the orange part. It's the part of the internet traffic. As you can see, it's really not much compared to other prices. The blue part is all the hidden prices. So, the provider you sell the traffic for about 60 euros. We see that according to the quality you ask you will have different prices. The base quality is three times more expensive than the access. It's 42 times more expensive than the access. No interest, we can see that there are big differences in quality and price. Of course, you pay for redundancy and reliability. So, content delivery. So, content delivery. Layer in a different way on the net. We can see that the different services were transported through different layers. So, I remember that IP is not just the internet, it's just the protocol. Then, what was it that came? To give you an idea, Call of Duty, the download of Call of Duty represents a lot compared to deliver movies to people. Send movies to people. For who is it important to have a very fast connection? So, we can see that half of the users leave when something takes more than 30 seconds to charge. I'm going through something because I'm running out of time. So, we're going to talk about internet neutrality. So, the definition of internet neutrality is that internet manufacturers deal with what they are going to do on the internet, deal with the content equally. In other words, there is no content to access your e-mails. It's the same priority than watching a movie. We don't prioritize it. We don't give the advantage to someone or to be trafficked compared to another. That's the net neutrality. So, for example, the regulations that cover the internet also cover net neutrality. We're going to talk about a package of bills for people who say we need a regulation there. This is a list of pros and cons. These are some of the arguments for the need for regulation on the internet. So, there are arguments for and against. For example, we need another internet to propose the equality of chances when the internet is neutral. The companies are competing equally. It's important to have a democratic internet. There is no technical discrimination. And some arguments against is that the internet changes quickly. The content is different. It's not really the same thing. For example, in Portugal, they don't have net neutrality. It's really scary because there, people don't pay for the internet. They pay for very special services. You pay, for example, to just have access to Facebook and Skype. You just have to pay to have access to YouTube and Netflix. Or you just have to pay to have access to Spotify, Google Play and SoundCloud. But you don't pay to have access to the internet. You only pay for very specific services. For example, I would say I would be scared. It scares me. I think I'm nearly at the end. It's going to be in the future. Almost in the next two years. The traffic continues to grow because of streaming. Netflix, for example, is 15% of international traffic. It's a huge number. About half of the internet traffic is encrypted, which is really a very good thing. It's important because it means that your traffic can't be inspected. People who will navigate your traffic will not be able to look at what you're going to navigate. It's important because it means that they can't factor you on the type of data that you're transferring. You really need to understand these actors who have a huge number on the internet in terms of transferring data. They also talk about world gardens closed communities. By closing the network, you can control the access and it can be used by certain operators to factor you on the access. This type of closed network can be seen on mobile networks. It's not a really good idea. Because it's a closed network, you have to pay for specific services. You don't have a global access to the internet. We also realize that more and more protocols are now transported via tunnels. We capture the traffic. More and more applications work directly on your computer. They work on servers and you access them through the internet and through your browser on the internet. To conclude, I think we really need to discuss more about the reality of the network. Originally, we built the internet as an exchange of ideas that gives access to information in a free and global way across the world. We should never forget that our responsibility here is to preserve this original internet. I think we'll come back to the conference to refresh your memory. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. It was fantastic. Let's move on to the question. Microphone number 2. Go ahead. I have a little question and a little more philosophical. The short one. Side number 60. You will show a few numbers about the QoS service quality. Where did you get those numbers from? What would you like to find on these numbers? Critical services or something like that. Are those real numbers? Are these numbers real? Where are they from? Where do they come from? I'll re-formulate your question which is a source of information for the information presented on the traffic. How can we see these numbers? It's hard to see. I have a calculation method but I couldn't show you what I don't have the time for. It uses an access number. I extract it. I use it with elements of data that we have on world traffic. It's a look and I definitely have to say that it's a ball. It's not an extremely precise method. Anyway, it's something completely secret. Even if I know, I can't tell you. You said that it's a closed garden. No, no, no. You got it wrong. I said, in some cases, if you have a chance, you can be happy in this kind of information. But from the point of view of the user of the internet, don't forget that we here represent 2% of people who use the internet. Think of your parents, your grandparents. They're normal users. This kind of information because they think it's a kind of golden prison. And they say, why am I changing? We tell them, it's not what it limits, but they don't understand that. My main question is that I feel that we should have important technological changes at the end of the year. Is IP really the right thing for the future? What can we add to the content? Do you see these picking up in the next... How do you see these paradigm changes? Do you think they will be adopted in the future? Yeah. So, I hope everybody has got this question. I hope everybody has got this question. I hope everybody has got this question. I see what you want to talk about. Do you talk about the interconnection of cloud history that uses their own connection mode? What really works, that's what's going to stay. I don't know where we are for the moment, but there are projects that Google started on the internet that they put in place, but it's going to be time-consuming for the future. It works with standard systems that we propose for commenters that are more or less adopted for the future. I want to see another question, but we can talk about it at the end of the conference. I would like to have a sarcasm here, but there was no time. Number one. I think one of the lessons for social movements that we had in Egypt was that it is very difficult to make a censorship on the internet. Do you think that the industry will work on a network that can really be cut? I would say yes, definitely. I think there are people who try to defend that. They say parallel networks parallel is a non-existent thing.  One for the business one for the users who pay one third, one fourth with less access where you can't even look at a Netflix movie. It could happen. I think it's one of the things that we have to worry about. To make sure that it doesn't happen. Okay, microphone number two. About the revenues used by internet users. Which used to be part of the state and used to own the network. I'm trying to rephrase your question. I'm trying to reformulate your question to see if I understand. You say that if we look at the access as we saw in the Schema all this infrastructure for the time was installed by the government and now it's being reimbursed with our taxes. Yes, I think it's problematic in a way. Say what can I say? The infrastructure is also a part where you have to manage the infrastructure. If you want that it works for more than 80% of the time and now it's the access funds that put this money there. So I imagine you could say that it's the one that should answer. It's true that it was already profitable before being privatized. It was already reimbursed before the private companies were charged. But there's a good reason for which they have the right to sell it. If they had used the infrastructure that we had 10 years ago we would have had a lot of trouble evolving on it. It wouldn't have been possible to have the companies in the street I was talking about earlier. So 10 years ago I would have agreed with you, it's not fair. Today I say that there's still a lot of financial investment so maybe it's normal to pay. The question is under what regulation? A question about over-the-top services in the summer. It's almost a political term and it's a trick that they try to do. I think I could pay for internet access and now that I paid I should have access to the internet because I paid for it. Maybe it's only at the best you pay maybe it should be a fixed price maybe maybe we should pay an equitable price by by by a traffic side, for example, Tiraocte Gigocte It's complicated to answer. The first thing is that the video streaming started at 2 Mbps and today we are at least 2 times more and in video 4k we will soon be at 10 Mbps. The problem is that the services on this top use the network in a way that has not been built. The protocol says that normally we have and that the network guarantees a traffic barrier but what happens today is that we have peak hours if you come Twitter which is 6 or 7 hours it's not the only thing and all of a sudden we have to build a lot of capacity to manage these flows and when everyone is going to sleep then the traffic almost goes zero and it takes you a long time to start it or it takes and progresses download more than 20 seconds it takes time to start the streaming like that as you have seen in the last shema 5 seconds most people turn off the stream after 5 seconds the customers not switching off the stream in 5 seconds so the service providers do not want to turn off the stream in 5 seconds if they have nothing and you have to be able to do that either in the middle of the night or in the beginning of the evening but it's peak of traffic it's very difficult to manage for the internet so the services on top it would work well if people did not connect at the same time but in fact everyone connects at the same time at 8.15 but we pay all for the transfer so I paid for this transfer and now you say that I can not access it but ok all the customers we pay for you can not pay for the peak of traffic that would be our whole conference but you are right you have a guarantee of passing but there is a difference between peak traffic and average traffic I do not have time to explain but I can discuss it here and there is no question for the internet OK still no questions on the internet for now OK one more question OK is there any role for public info there is a role for the information if you are really public can there be a public effort to cover for example the last mile no we are not soft it's not a for this problem in fact. Wait, someone wants to participate in the room. Hello, I work as an access officer for a small town. We work a lot with administrative services like Stuttgart and in the restaurants. If you look at the costs of building a local infrastructure, it's hard to make it public. Because every 30 years, we have to replace the infrastructure in the streets of the city. So it can be a good idea to do it once, once to do everything that is high, gas, electricity, internet, rather than doing work in the streets every three years. But the economic question there, it led us to do things in a way that is not bad or where we have to dig up in the streets to put our cables. Quite often. So we separated between the different parts of the infrastructure. In a regulatory structure, it's what we are given by the control authority, but it's not very useful. But if you try to put it back politically, it's very difficult. Because a lot of people say it's impossible to do that. Do we have to talk about this? Thank you very much for this intervention. I am aware of this approach. I know that in Berlin or Amsterdam, a part of the infrastructure, for example, is public. But it doesn't work anymore. It's a project that doesn't work anymore. Thank you all for being here this early. Thank you very much everyone for coming early this morning.


What is up everybody? This is Chris from the Rewired Soul, where we talk about the problem, but focus on the solution. And if you're new to my channel, my channel's all about mental health. And something that can take a major toll on your mental health is relationships. So if you're into that stuff, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell. And yeah, I'm gonna do at least a few videos on this show, Love is Blind.  But yeah, so many of you when this show started, I had so many messages. So many messages like you can talk about Love is Blind, are you gonna talk about Love is Blind? Chris, you'd need to make videos on Love is Blind. All right, and I finally decided to torture myself and watch this. So Tristan and I legit watched seven straight episodes. Yesterday and there's so much to talk about. But for those of you who don't know me, I try to see what we can learn from stuff like this. All right, but anyways, I was like, should I talk about Jessica and Mark and that hot mess of a relationship? Or should I talk about Giannina and Damien? And as you can see, as you clicked on this, I decided to go with Damien and Giannina for this very first video. Before we get started, I gotta vent a little bit. I need you guys to let me know if I'm crazy or if we're on the same page. So this show, Love is Blind, was promoted as like, almost like the voice, but for dating, right? And I love the voice, okay? So you put these people in a pods and they don't get to see each other. This way they can't be physically attracted to each other. In any way, you're just making this pure emotional and spiritual connection. But as you watch this show for like five minutes, you start to realize that literally every man and woman on there is like at least an eight or a nine, right? So like this whole like, ooh, you can't see him, like that doesn't even matter. Like on the voice, you legit don't know who it is. Like they've had blind people on there. They've had overweight people on there, right? They've had people on there who are not traditionally attractive and they are judged purely on their voice. Whereas in Love is Blind, like, a lot of these people would have been attracted to each other anyways, all right? So let me know if I'm crazy. Let me know your thoughts on that. Like I would have loved to see a mix with some like fours and fives in there, maybe some threes, you know, and all of that, right? Like just so there'd be more of this like, oh, are they really going to be physically attracted to each other, right? But anyways, anyways, let's dive into this. So yeah, we're gonna be talking about Giannina and Damien. And I wanted to talk about three major things. Obviously this show is in a setting that is not realistic, but it can be realistic if you're somebody who's like, I need to find a mate, all right? Because I might do a whole video on the psychology of when you get locked into that idea, how you make really bad decisions. But anyways, there's still a lot of things that we can learn about red flags and what they mean and what we should look for and all that. And I wish somebody would have talked to me about this when I was in my younger dating days, all right? So the first thing I wanna talk about is self-sabotage. So when Damien finally proposed to Giannina, right? She's like, I have something to tell you. I'm like, oh, girl, was she gonna tell him? And she ended up telling him that she has a tendency to self-sabotage. He's like, oh, it's okay, baby, it's okay, right?  Check this out, okay? When somebody tells you they self-sabotage, okay? You have to ask yourself, what does that mean? Okay, what does that mean? Because the word self-sabotage almost sounds like the person is only doing it to themselves. And that could happen in, you know, maybe they self-sabotage, you know, work or school or whatever, but self-sabotaging relationships is a completely different ball game. And check this out. Not only have I dated women who self-sabotage relationships, this guy, this guy right here used to self-sabotage relationships. So first, let's understand the mindset of somebody who is self-sabotaging relationships. They typically, and at least from my experience, they typically don't feel good enough, they don't feel worthy enough of a relationship. So they try to push that person away as hard as they can, all right? And this can come in a variety of different forms, starting fights, right?  Doing things like that. And a lot of it has to do with, you know, there's also this fear of abandonment.  And from the outside looking in, you're just like, oh, maybe they'll just test you a couple of times, but this is an ongoing issue and something that's gonna be a focal point of this video is therapy, okay? This type of behavior usually doesn't get fixed unless there's therapy or for me, it really became to the forefront of my mind and me realizing what I was doing in 12-step programs when I first got sober, but now I'm in therapy. Like it takes a lot of inner work and introspection to work on this self-sabotaging.  For me personally, I stayed single for over a year and a half to work on these things because I knew how selfish it was to get somebody in a relationship with me when I knew I was going to do those behaviors. So if you are somebody who self-sabotages, check yourself, go to therapy, work on this thing before you keep jumping into a relationship to see who could put up with you at your worst, right? And if you are somebody who is about to get in a relationship, if that other person says that they self-sabotage, you need to sit down and ask yourself, what does that mean? What does that look like? All right, because it typically means they are going to possibly verbally and emotionally abuse you, okay? So the next thing that we need to talk about is black and white thinking, okay? So there was this scene that I was like, oh, damn, when Giannina and Damien, it was right after they did the little birthday party for Barnett and the next morning, because Giannina and Damien got in this huge fight, the next morning there was still that kind of tension, right? And I could do a whole thing about resolving conflicts and relationships too. As I spitball here, let me know down in the comments if you want me to make videos on this stuff. But anyways, out of nowhere, out of nowhere Giannina brings up that he always says this is the best sex he's ever had, but she's like, you ever notice how I don't say that? Like, ugh, okay? Typically, this is something that you see with people who suffer from black and white thinking. And by the way, don't get me wrong, like there are plenty of faults on Damien's end, right? But I think I can relate more to Giannina, so I wanted to focus on that for this video. But anyways, for those of you who don't know what black and white thinking is, it's where you categorize people as either all good or all bad, right? And in relationships, the way that looks like, what that looks like is, I love you, you're the best thing to ever happen to me.    I can't handle you, right? There's no in between. There's no in between. And typically, this is a result of poor emotional regulation, right? Where you're putting somebody as all good or all bad. It's this extreme version of attraction and aversion. So what you're seeing right there is she's not just kind of saying like, oh, and that was a real jerk thing you said to me. No, she wanted to hit him right where it hurt where it would be the most painful thing. And this isn't just some relationships, like intimate relationships.  It might be with a friend, it might be with a family member, it might be with somebody online where they try to attack something that's gonna hurt your pride the most. So what Giannina was doing, she was attacking kind of his manly hood, how he's able to please a woman. She went straight for the jugular with that stuff, okay? So if you do struggle with black and white thinking, something that helped me get out of it was aside from therapy, mindfulness, meditation, because what that does is it strengthens your prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for emotional regulation, right? I used to be all over the place. And in the next thing we're gonna talk about, in the scene I'm gonna talk about, Giannina actually mentions a couple times in the scene about how she has these emotional roller coasters, all right? So although you hear that emotional roller coaster, what that means is a problem with emotional regulation, all right? So the way I used to teach people in the rehab is if you look at this thing on a scale, right? Zero in the middle, plus 10, minus 10, okay?  Whereas some people start to like somebody, people with bad emotional regulation, they fall in love.  And that's kind of the difference. So we need to work on ourselves to get us back towards that middle, okay? How quickly we bounce back to that average state of emotions, okay? So the last thing I wanna talk about, and by the way, we just finished episode eight, so I'm not even done with the season, might have some more stuff to talk about, but I have a pretty good idea of what's gonna happen. But anyways, at the scene where they talk over dinner and Damien is airing all of his grievances with Giannina. Well, there's a point where Damien says, I need you to try. I need you to try to not pick so many fights, to calm down, I need you to try. And then she makes that commitment. She makes that commitment, right? So aside from my clients at the rehab, who would talk to me about their relationships, I've also had a lot of friends throughout my life who talked to me about this. And they're in these relationships where they're constantly fighting and all these other things. And they'll either express that they want the other person to try, or they'll tell me that the other person said they were gonna try. And kinda like what we talked about with self-sabotage, this is where I want you to think about this. What does trying look like, okay? Just sit on that for one second. What does trying look like? All right, for me and what I would talk to other people about, or the advice I give people when they ask me, what trying looks like to me is going to therapy. That's what trying looks like to me. What trying looks like to me is a person having a regular meditation practice. What trying looks like to me is a person starting to journal and do some self-reflection. But typically when someone says they're trying is they basically had that conversation and then they go back to their normal behaviors. So even though I haven't watched the rest of this season, I guarantee I would put money on the fact that Giannina trying literally means nothing. And that's what we gotta look at in relationships, especially if you're in that early kind of part of the relationship where there's not a huge investment in the relationship, like you've only been together a month, two months, whatever it is, if you are constantly fighting and that other person says that they are going to try, ask yourself what that looks like. Hell, better yet ask the other person what that means, okay? Have them make a commitment on what trying actually means. Because if trying just means I'm gonna try not to get so angry. Like what? Like what are the steps you are taking? Like I can try to be a pilot, but unless I take lessons on how to be a pilot, me trying is just a pie in the sky dream, you see? So if your partner says they're going to try, see what that means. And the last thing I'll talk about which really just popped into my head is you see this a lot in abusive relationships where there is worst case domestic violence, but typically a lot emotional verbal abuse where it is very toxic, it is destroying your mental health and the person apologizes and they say they're gonna try to do better. The reason why I try to really drill this home with people is when the other person says that, what does trying look like? What does trying mean? Okay, because most of us, we have this false belief that we have this willpower to just control our emotions, but if you're not practicing taking care of your emotions, that trying doesn't mean squat. All right, those of you new around here I like to pull a comment from the last video, share it in this video, discuss a little bit and then leave you something to leave a comment on in this video. So the comment from the last video, the number one comment actually is from, God, I hope I don't butcher this name. Tazit Dewey, sorry if I screwed up your name. Sound like Jarvis Johnson. But anyway, just says, bro, I was an heroin addict just a few months back doing, during cold turkey period, your videos helped me a lot. Thanks, I appreciate you. That is why I do this, but I'm gonna tell you, as well as anybody else who watches my videos, the same thing that my sponsor used to tell me.  And he would remind me, he's like, nah, man, you're doing the work. So to Tazit and anybody else out there, just remember like, if you are getting better, like I'm only here to plant seeds, right? Like I just wanna encourage people to go get help and start working on themselves. You know what I mean? But in order to get better, like we have to put in the work. So Tazit, congratulations on your recovery. Like you have put in this work and that is awesome, okay? But for this video, down in the comments below, let me know if you have struggled with self-sabotage, what you did to overcome it or if you're still working on it. If you can relate to anything that we've talked about as far as relationships, drop it down in the comments, let us know what you learned from this, okay? I want this to be a community where we can learn from each other's experiences. I'm just one dude sharing my experience, my thoughts, my opinions, all that, but I want this to be a team group effort, all right? Anyways, I forgot to mention, if you need therapy, if you have insurance, talk to your insurance provider, see who's covered in your network. You could talk to your primary care doctor, they might be able to refer you to a therapist, psychologist, psychiatrist, if you might need meds. But lastly, I personally use better help online therapy. If you would like to check it out, it is affordable online therapy, which I personally use, I have an amazing therapist, and they actually help support the channel, so there is an affiliate link. Down below, basically what that means is that you get affordable online therapy with an amazing therapist, and a little bit of it comes back to help support the channel, all right? Anyways, that's all I got for this video. If you liked this video, please give it a thumbs up. If you're new, make sure you subscribe and ring that notification bell because I will be making a few more Love Is Blind videos, all right, and I want to send out a huge thank you to everybody who supports the channel over on Patreon, as well as everybody who buys my mental health books at therewiretole.com, and everybody who supports the channel by buying the merch, you're all awesome, all right? Thanks again for watching, I'll see you next time.


Move over Pierce Morgan, there's a new head honcho anti-vegan in town and his name is Jeremy Clarkson. Jeremy Clarkson is an English TV host turned wannabe farmer and is most well known for his hosting of the TV series Top Gear. We can start with the fact that he's constantly belittling vegetarians and vegans, calling us vegetabilists. That's a new one, and in one video calls those who drink oat milk, pale, spotty, gaunt, virgins. He even once said in an article that we should feed vegans to cows in order to help tackle climate change. He gets so triggered by vegans and veganism that he literally protested the fact that the Oxford Council was going to only serve plant-based meals at their meetings in order to tackle climate change. So it's not radical to make a suggestion like we should feed vegans to cows to tackle climate change, but it's completely radical to suggest we should eat plants to tackle climate change. Well, like so that triggered you so much that you would protest it, but it's fine to make your little tabloid sensationalized headlines like let's feed vegans to cows. The only time I've ever seen this guy angry at the fact that we kill animals is when the animals are cold on farms and their bodies aren't eaten. Quote, we are not killing animals so that we can eat them, which is sensible and proper. We are killing them and then basically throwing them away, which is utterly idiotic. Wow. So it's not the fact that we're killing animals against their will, as the fact that their dead bodies are not eaten, which truly makes Jeremy angry. Wow. So he also caused outrage on one of his TV shows when he decided to use a bunch of dead animals as props. So I think they were trying to weigh some cows and because the live cows didn't want to jump on the scales, they decided to use the corpses of murdered cows, real corpses of murdered cows instead. And they were accused of killing animals for entertainment or using the dead bodies of animals for entertainment on the TV show. So that's all fine and proper for Jeremy. The thing that really gets me about Jeremy, it's hard to not think of this guy as just a proper shield for farming, a shield for the meat industry. He wrote an article saying why the UK should be proud of our animal welfare. And in the article attacks other countries, because remember it's always happening elsewhere and never in your own country. He attacked other countries' welfare and praised the UK and promoted the idea of humane washing. He said that basically what we should do is juxtapose the bad welfare practices of other countries with nice green grass and pasture images from the UK. But the UK's practices in many ways are not much different at all from the practices of other countries. If you want to know more, check out my uncovered series, check out Land of Hope and Glory, check out the investigations done by Serge, Viva and Animal Equality. I've been in dozens of these factory farms now. Check out the investigations by VFC. You name them. It's almost like the pro farming bias crew like Jeremy and Co. When they promote farming, it's all green pastures and grass. But when we take cameras to these places, there's all dead, dying, diseased chickens in horrible factory farms and pigs desperately trying to escape farrowing crates with dead piglets all around them and horrible images of cows desperately trying to escape a knockbox inside of these family run slaughterhouses. Wow, really humane. Jeremy also wrote this article, Why I Won't Be Giving Up Pheasant Shooting, where he literally highlights his own speciesism and then tries to justify it.  And when he met one in the middle of the night, literally pissed in his shoes, in his own words, he literally wrote out his fantasy of lion poachers being tortured and killed by Somali pirates. I mean, could you imagine if I made a statement like pig farmers? It would be great if they were tortured and killed by Somali pirates. Could you imagine what would happen to me? Well, I know what would happen because I once made a statement that I hope hunters shoot one of their family members on a hunting trip, then maybe they will understand what it feels like to be hunted down and shot. And oh my god, it was like it made headlines in the news. Pierce used it against me in the debate I had with him on Good Morning Britain. Alongside the video entitled Ethical Hunters Deserve a Bullet in the Head, you wrote, I hope one of these leaps accidentally shoot one of their own family members in the face. Anything I've said in the past, I've changed my advocacy. When I first went vegan, I was quite angry about what was happening to animals and rightly so. But wait a second, Piercey Boy? You've got a lot in common with Piercey Boy. He even called for the decapitation of Walter Palmer, the famous person who went and killed Cecil the Lion. Pierce Morgan hates poachers. You would be great friends. So I don't know why you punched him in the face. Literally, he punched Pierce Morgan in the face. He attacked me in a savage way. But you too would make just great buddies, the best of friends, especially with how bigger hypocrites you both are. I don't condone violence but you know, Pierce does have it coming to him.  But let's continue. He wrote another article in The Sunday Times entitled Farmer Clarkson on which animals he can't bear to kill. So he goes on in the article to talk about how he loves certain animals and wants to brutally kill others and I quote, I wouldn't hurt an otter but would happily stamp repeatedly on the head of a badger. Again, admitting how much of a morally inconsistent speciesist hypocrite he really is. But other than his show Top Gear, Jeremy's also got a show called Clarkson Farm where he exploits and kills animals on the, as he calls it, Diddly Squat Farm. And the idea of Diddly Squat, I think in the UK Diddly Squat means making hardly anything, no money. So it's the idea is like Jeremy nobly farms animals for hardly any money.  All right. So he's just basically doing it for, I don't know, some weird farmer clout romanticizing of farming or something is trying to prove how tough farmers have it or something like this. It's, I don't know, it's quite bizarre. But what I most wanted to focus on is this. So this is a Sun article entitled, former Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson is embarking on a new journey taking six sheep to their deaths on his show Clarkson Farms. The 61 year old burst into tears as he became overwhelmed with emotion after he drove three years to an abattoir for them to be put down. Why is that? Why is that Jezza Jeremy, Mr. Making Fun of Vegans Constantly? Why are you getting so filled with emotion? Isn't this like the circle of life?   You've got a bunch of other stuff here. Why are you getting so emotional about cutting the heads off of lambs that you like? Let's keep going. Jeremy made the decision to end their life in the second installment of his new show that follows his life as he embarks on being a farmer. It comes after he was told that three of his youths would be unable to breed healthy lambs and he doesn't class them as pets. He was advised to have them be killed. So basically they didn't need to be killed. He only killed them because they couldn't bear young for him. They couldn't make money for his diddly squat farm, which is just a load of nonsense TV show. So they died for nothing. He killed them because he was advised as they weren't pets for them to go to the slaughter house. Didn't even have to kill him. That's even more sickening actually. Speaking to those at the abattoir, Jeremy looked uneasy but decided to kill them regardless. So let me just get this straight. Jeremy is so upset he has to take his animals to slaughter, even though he doesn't have to. They just couldn't bear young for him. He was so sad. Oh my god, this is horrible. Okay, let's do it. You know what I mean? Like what went through his mind? Burst him to tears.  Let's kill him.  No, let's kill him. Let's kill him. You know, whatever. Driving animals to their death, he said, I don't know what to say or think about this mission this morning.  He didn't want to look like, you know, one of those soft city folk. I'm a sheep farmer and this is what sheep farmers do. They take their animals to the abattoir. In chilling and upsetting scenes, the youths were led out of Jeremy's trailer and into a pen. Appearing as a voice over, Jeremy told viewers what I really needed were a few soothing words telling me that what I was doing was the right thing. Well, Jeremy, your conscience was telling you another thing, wasn't it?   I know it's just Jeremy represents a large proportion of males around the world who are trying to uphold this facade. You know what I mean? And you're talking to someone who's an ex gang member and I know very much about trying to uphold this. I'm tough. So I do this facade. I know all about it. Like, trust me, I know it to the extreme of where you can take this. But there's this culture farmer. This is what sheep farmers do.  You know, this is what we do. He's forcing himself to do something he doesn't want to do. Doesn't that tell you everything you need to know? Anyways, I'm starting to think that Jeremy just projects his, um, you know, the fact that this is like pierce. They're both against poaching. They're both anti vegan. They're both eating animals. They've both got this crazy obvious hypocrisy. I'm no psychologist, but that's very easy for me to understand. However, that's not what Jeremy got as the man in charge of the abattoir told him. It's a shame because they're nice sheep, aren't they?  Looking annoyed at the camera, Jeremy explained they can't breed and they can't be with a flock. I deliberately haven't given them names, not out loud anyway. So you hadn't given them names, not out loud, not to individualize them or anything, not to give them an individual identity because it's a lot harder to kill Sally and Daisy and you know, what fluffy the sheep, isn't it? It's a lot harder to kill individuals. You'd rather just keep them as general units of measurement and slaughter them like that. And that oppressive mindset is the same oppressive mindset humans have used against each other. Don't individualize these people, these children, these animals, whoever they are, whichever sentient conscious being we're talking about, make them a group and then kill the group, oppress the group. That's exactly what Jeremy does in this context here with the sheep. Don't individualize them. They're just sheep. I'm a sheep farmer. This is what sheep farmers do.  Jeremy was taken to a shed to fill out forms to confirm he wanted his sheep killed. They're his property. This is the problem, the property status of animals. They're his property.  So it was on him. So he decided this on leaving the shed. The star told workers at the abattoir that he wanted to say one last goodbye to the use but was met with some rather upsetting news. Jeremy told the boss he was going to say bye before the abattoir owner informed him they were already dead. As he wanted to say goodbye, I'm killing you.  Hey, hitman, just wait a second. Please, please. I want to say goodbye. I'm really sorry. Goodbye. I really liked you. I didn't give you his names anyway, but you know, catch you later. The sheep had been on my farm for three months and for all of that, they'd been very expensive, but these belligerent sex mad illness machines have brought a lot of joy to the farm. I'd grown to love having them around and there was one more surprise in store. This is the part that should sicken you. It should really sicken you and should really highlight this cognitive dissonance. This, I feel one way, but my actions are doing completely the opposite thing. And a lot of people had this. I had this, you know, but this is blatant. This is really, really blatant. Jeremy's emotions didn't last long as he was then filmed eating the flesh of his dead use for dinner. I cannot wait to eat them. I cannot wait. Wow. He literally ate them. He was all sad. He loved having their company. He literally ate them. That's that to me feels like, you know, you've got a pet dog at home imagine taking your right now taking your dog or cat to the slaughterhouse. You love them, right? You really love them. It's not one of those dogs that people don't care about. They live outside and they just, you know, be neglected. I'm talking about they're part of your family, right? And then you take them to the slaughterhouse.  That is some of the most obvious blatant cognitive dissonance I've ever seen. And one of the biggest hypocrites when it comes to this issue tries to philosophize his way around it and tries to justify it, but he really can't. You know what this reminds me of? Anyone remember that Simpson episode where Homer gave his beloved pet lobster pinchy a hot bath and it was a little too hot? Ended up cooking pinchy in the water and then he like realized that pinchy was dead and he was like freaking out crying hysterically.  And he's like eating pinchy, dipping them in butter and he won't share the corpse of pinchy. This is that. This is that scene. I remember watching that scene when I was really young and thinking, oh my god, that's crazy.  But anyways, there's so much with this Jeremy guy.  Jeremy, I hope you're watching this mate.  I doubt he would, but like come on my channel and let's discuss it. Maybe I'll visit your Diddly Squat farm with you and we can have a discussion about all of this stuff because maybe there's a nice guy underneath that big tough guy facade that you tried to perpetuate.  And I'll see you in the next video. Peace.


Hello everyone, this is Amit Dan of amitdan.com. Today I'll have another episode of unboxing and review video and I'll be presenting an Amazon watch which was Something interesting. It's going to be a different type of watch because you know this watch fairly looks Similar with another watch, which I'll show you and then you know, I'll talk about some of the specs and everything so Adjustive about a few weeks ago. I did another Amazon watch review, which I'll put in the description box below and still I'm using this watch which I have it right here and today this is a digital watch and You know, let's open up and take a look at it before we do that. I'm going to show you some of the specs Amazon didn't provide much specs about this watch on its website But I was able to gather some of the information right here. So this is the full name of the watch Amazon essentials unisex digital chronograph silicone strap watch. So it's a handful name and then Let's look at some of the features. So this is a basic value watch and this is even higher 65 foot water resistant and then in terms of weight, this is only 36.3 grams. So very lightweight and It looks identical to another watch, which you'll see very shortly and then it has actually a stopwatch alarm Backlight and you know some features which will go over it so I'll just set it to set here and The watch came in this box, which is the same box of the Amazon watch I previously interviewed. So it looks like they're using the same box for Most of their watches and if you wanted to know the Model number, which is right here. So this is AE 104 BLK Looks like 20 206 D. So this is the Model number here. So let's start opening up the watch Okay, so the box is empty and I'll just like you know said this box away so they included an instruction manual right here and It has some of the features and you know setting selecting features Setting the time and calendar and then looks like there's some sort of warranty card Okay, actually it comes with even a three year warranty and you know They just you know applied or provided more instructions right here So I'm not going to go through it but I'll just look at the watch now. So this is a true review So what it means that there's no affiliated links. No, nothing.  This is my first time. I'm looking at you You know, it's just like you know, if you're buying something and looking at it for the first time So I haven't mastered the product So definitely like, you know, this is the probably the only true and honest review you're going to find So let's look at it right here. So I'm going to just you know open the watch and The first thing I'm noticing even without looking at the watch is that the silicone strap is very comfortable and very like you know, it feels really good and then if you look at the watch right here and Definitely this looks like if very familiar watch and if you're wondering what would that be I'm going to show you the legendary Casio F20. I'm sorry F91W watch Which is right here and you can see the similarities between these This one slightly bigger, but definitely, you know, anyone Whenever someone is looking at it, they're going to think of the Casio F91W watch So definitely there's a lot of similarities between these two watches. So I'll just set this aside I also have a review of this watch you'll find on my channel so here so on Let's look at the face looks like there's a protection or protective cover and I'll just you know remove this Okay, so it's just coming off easily. I'll just set it aside here now What I'm looking at or what I'm noticing is the bold face, you know the big numbers and kind of this red border on the outer side and Everything's kind of like you know blending very nicely. It looks really nice But you know the water resistant 165 feet and the alarm chrono and kind of the white like you know writings and everything it kind of a little bit Sticks out, but not a lot Still it looks like you know very good and Let's look on the back of the watch So this looks like you know stainless steel cover to you know make it water resistant and It doesn't say much on the back So let's look at it here So if you compare this with Casio f 91 w the numbers are bigger One thing I'm noticing here you know the Watch from the side is a little bit difficult to see it, but you know still okay But it's kind of like you know It has a very good view when you are looking at straight But if you are kind of like you know trying to look from a sideline then just a little bit not that clear But I couldn't complain about that much on this now. Let's take a look at some of the settings here so here we have the mode button and Here we have the EL button and I don't know what does that mean and here is the stopwatch and so let's see if I press the Stopwatch I don't see anything happening. So let's try to you know, press the mode button and Here actually looks like you know This is the mode to start this top watch and then you press mode again looks like you're seeing the alarm and then if you are if you keep pressing it then it just you know taking you to through the different mode and Although you cannot see it, but if you press this button It's like you know the backlight button. It's kind of giving you very greenish like you know light I'll try to try to put it. I Try to darken this watch so you can see it. So let's say I have it right here and So you can see right now It's not indiglo, but it's kind of fist like like you know very nice like you know back light Which is good enough to see at night. So I like that feature there and In terms of like, you know the buttons they're not too like, you know They're not too loose not too tight. So they're just you know comfortable and What I'm going to do. Let me just like you know word this and see how it feels so it feels really nice, you know to worry and if you Would complain that Casio f91 w is a very small on the wrist then definitely this is you know Bigger than Casio f91 w if you have complaints about Casio f91 w that you know, it's a very small then Definitely this one is a bit bigger and You know, it has a greater view of the time So it's much easier to like, you know look at the time and The other thing I can tell you that, you know, it doesn't show the Date on the main screen, but you know if you look at the Casio If 91 w then it has the like, you know the day and date on the main screen but here I don't see it on the main screen, but you can Just like you know if you if you push this button then you have Then looks like you know, you can see the date and number you can see the date and month on screen. Well overall, I'm happy with the product I Purchased this about 16 dollars Canadian, which I would say, you know very cheap It's slightly cheaper than the Casio f91 w But it looks like you know very similar and you know it just a little bit like you know bigger and the face is Bold it has that bold look or like, you know, it kind of sticks out because of the red border and the big numbers and the white highlights Which is kind of blending with the black case and the strap so comparing the price, you know, I cannot complain about the watch and The first Amazon watch I discovered just like you know a few weeks ago Which I already mentioned you before is this one and I have a review of this one Which you will find in the description box below and then I purchased This Amazon unisex chronograph digital watch because it looks so much like you know the Casio and Then I just wanted to you know do a review and show you guys for that reason. I purchased this watch So thank you for watching this video Forget about subscribing this channel forget about liking this video. There will be more videos coming up. So I'll see you shortly. Thank you


How could you believe in a God that sends innocent people to hell?  It doesn't? No, here's what the Bible says about where we truly stand before God. Romans 3, 23, for all have sinned and fallen short of a glory of God. Romans 3, 10, none is righteous, no not one, no one understands, no one seeks for God, all have turned aside together, they have become worthless, no one does good, not even one. John 1, 18, whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already because he is not believed in the name of the only Son of God. Here's the hard reality, none of us are innocent. We have all rebelled against God and stand guilty before him.  And He rose again on the third day, defeating sin and death. And He calls us today to put our faith in Him.


CHAPTER IV. THE ORDER AND AIMS OF ECONOMIC STUDIES We have seen that the economists must be greedy of facts, but that facts by themselves teach nothing. History tells of sequences and coincidences, but reason alone can interpret and draw lessons from them. The work to be done is so various that much of it must be left to be dealt with by trained common sense, which is the ultimate arbiter in every practical problem. Economic science is but the working of common sense, aided by appliances of organized analysis and general reasoning, which facilitate the task of collecting, arranging, and drawing inferences from particular facts. Though its scope is always limited, though its work without the aid of common sense is vain, yet it enables common sense to go further in difficult problems than would otherwise be possible. Economic laws are statements with regard to the tendencies of man's action under certain conditions. They are hypothetical only in the same sense as are laws of the physical sciences, for these laws also contain or imply conditions. But there is more difficulty in making the conditions clear and more danger in any failure to do so in economics than in physics. The laws of human action are not indeed as simple, as definite or as clearly ascertainable as the law of gravitation, but many of them rank with the laws of those natural sciences which deal with complex subject matter. The raison d'etre of economics as a separate science is that it deals chiefly with that part of man's action which is most under the control of measurable motives, and which therefore lends itself better than any other to systematic reasoning and analysis. We cannot indeed measure motives of any kind, whether high or low, as they are in themselves, we can measure only their moving force. Money is never a perfect measure of that force, and it is not even a tolerably good measure unless careful account is taken of the general conditions under which it works, and especially of the riches or poverty of those whose action is under discussion. But with careful precautions money affords a fairly good measure of the moving force of a great part of the motives by which men's lives are fashioned. The study of theory must go hand in hand with that of facts, and for dealing with most modern problems it is modern facts that are of the greatest use. For the economic records of the distant past are in some respects slight and untrustworthy, and the economic conditions of early times are wholly unlike those of the modern age of free enterprise, of general education, of true democracy, of steam, of the cheap press and the telegraph. Economics has then, as its purpose, firstly to acquire knowledge for its own sake, and secondly to throw light on practical issues. But though we are bound, before entering on any study, to consider carefully what are its uses, we should not plan out our work with direct reference to them. For by so doing we are tempted to break off each line of thought as soon as it ceases to have an immediate bearing on that particular aim which we have in view at the time. The direct pursuit of practical aims leads us to group together bits of all sorts of knowledge which have no connection with one another except for the immediate purposes of the moment, and which throw but little light on one another. Our mental energy is spent in going from one to another, nothing is thoroughly thought out, no real progress is made. The best grouping therefore for the purposes of science is that which collects together all those facts and reasonings which are similar to one another in nature so that the study of each may throw light on its neighbor. By working thus for a long time at one set of considerations we get gradually nearer to those fundamental unities which are called nature's laws. We trace their action first singly and then in combination, and thus make progress slowly but surely. The practical uses of economic studies should never be out of the mind of the economist, but his special business is to study and interpret facts and to find out what are the effects of different causes acting singly and in combination. This may be illustrated by enumerating some of the chief questions to which the economist addresses himself. He inquires, what are the causes which, especially in the modern world, affect the consumption and production, the distribution and exchange of wealth, the organization of industry and trade, the money market, wholesale and retail dealing, foreign trade, and the relations between employers and employed. How do all these movements act and react upon one another? How do their ultimate differ from their immediate tendencies? Subject to what limitation is the price of anything a measure of its desirability? What increase of well-being is prima facie likely to result from a given increase in the wealth of any class of society? How far is the industrial efficiency of any class impaired by the insufficiency of its income? How far would an increase of the income of any class, if once affected, be likely to sustain itself through its effects in increasing their efficiency and earning power? How far does, as a matter of fact, the influence of economic freedom reach? Or how far has it reached at any particular time, in any place, in any rank of society, or in any particular branch of industry? What other influences are most powerful there? And how is the action of all these influences combined? In particular, how far does economic freedom tend of its own action to build up combinations and monopolies, and what are their effects? How are the various classes of society likely to be affected by its action in the long run? What will be the immediate effects, while its ultimate results are being worked out? And account being taken of the time over which they will spread, what is the relative importance of these two classes of ultimate and intermediate effects? What will be the incidence of any system of taxes? What burdens will it impose on the community, and what revenue will it afford to the state? The above are the main questions with which economic science has to deal directly, and with reference to which its main work of collecting facts, of analyzing them and reasoning about them, should be arranged. The practical issues which, though lying for the greater part outside the range of economic science, yet supply a chief motive in the background to the work of the economist, vary from time to time and from place to place, even more than do the economic facts and conditions which form the material of his studies. The following problems seem to be of special urgency now in our own country. How should we act so as to increase the good and diminish the evil influences of economic freedom, both in its ultimate results and in the course of its progress? If the first are good and the latter evil, but those who suffer the evil do not reap the good, how far is it right that they should suffer for the benefit of others? Taking it for granted that a more equal distribution of wealth is to be desired, how far would this justify changes in the institutions of property or limitations of free enterprise even when they would be likely to diminish the aggregate of wealth? In other words, how far should an increase in the income of the poorer classes and a diminution of their work be aimed at, even if it involves some lessening of national material wealth? How far could this be done without injustice and without slackening the energies of the leaders of progress? How walk the burdens of taxation to be distributed among the different classes of society? Aught we to rest content with the existing forms of division of labor? Is it necessary that large numbers of the people should be exclusively occupied with work that has no elevating character? Is it possible to educate gradually among the great mass of workers a new capacity for the higher kinds of work, and in particular for undertaking cooperatively the management of the business in which they are themselves employed? What are the proper relations of individual and collective action in a stage of civilization such as ours? How far ought voluntary association in its various forms, old and new, to be left to supply collective action for those purposes for which such action has special advantages? What business affairs should be undertaken by society itself acting through its government, imperial or local? Have we, for instance, carried as far as we should the plan of collective ownership and use of open spaces, of works of art, of the means of instruction and amusement, as well as of those material requisites for a civilized life, the supply of which requires united action, such as gas and water and railways? When government does not itself directly intervene, how far should it allow individuals and corporations to conduct their own affairs as they please? How far should it regulate the management of railways and other concerns, which are to some extent in a position of monopoly, and again of land and other things the quantity of which cannot be increased by man? Is it necessary to retain in their full force all the existing rights of property, or have the original necessities for which they were meant to provide, in some measure, passed away? Are the prevailing methods of using wealth entirely justifiable? What scope is there for the moral pressure of social opinion in constraining and directing individual action in those economic relations in which the rigidity and violence of government interference would be likely to do more harm than good? In what respect do the duties of one nation to another in economic matters differ from those members of the same nation to one another? Economics is thus to be taken to mean a study of the economic aspects and conditions of man's political, social, and private life, but more especially of his social life. The aims of the study are to gain knowledge for its own sake, and to obtain guidance in the practical conduct of life, and especially of social life. The need for such guidance was never so urgent as now. A later generation may have more abundant leisure than we for researchers that throw light on obscure points in abstract speculation or in the history of past times, but do not afford immediate aid in present difficulties. But though thus largely directed by practical needs, economics avoids as far as possible the discussion of those exigencies of party organization and those diplomacy of home and foreign politics of which the statesman is bound to take account in deciding what measures he can propose will bring him nearest to the end that he desires to secure for his country. It aims indeed at helping him to determine not only what that end should be, but also what are the best methods of a broad policy devoted to that end. But it shuns many political issues which the practical man cannot ignore, and it is therefore a science pure and applied rather than a science and an art, and it is better described by the broad term economics than by the narrower term political economy. The economist needs the three great intellectual faculties, perception, imagination, and reason, and most of all he needs imagination to put him on the track of those causes of visible effects which are remote or lie below the surface, and of those effects of visible causes which are remote or lie below the surface. The natural sciences, and especially the physical group of them, have this advantage as a discipline over all the studies of man's action, that in them the investigator is called on for an exact conclusion which can be verified by subsequent observation or experiment. His fault is soon detected if he contends himself with such causes and such effects as lie on the surface, or again if he ignores the mutual interaction of the forces of nature, wherein every movement modifies and is modified by all that surround it. Nor does the thorough student of physics rest satisfied with a mere general analysis. He is ever striving to make it quantitative and to assign its proper proportion to each element in his problem. In sciences that relate to man, exactness is less attainable. The path of least resistance is sometimes the only one open. It is always alluring, and though it is also always treacherous, the temptation is great to follow it, even when a more thorough way can be fought out by resolute work. The scientific student of history is hampered by his inability to experiment, and even more by the absence of any objective standard to which his estimates of relative proportion can be referred. Such estimates are latent in almost every stage of his argument. He cannot conclude that one cause or group of causes has been overridden by another without making some implicit estimate of their relative weights. And yet it is only by a great effort that he perceives how dependent he is on his own subjective impressions. The economist also is hampered by this difficulty, but in a less degree than other students of man's action, for indeed he has some share in those advantages which give precision and objectivity to the work of the physicist. So long at all events, as he is concerned with current and recent events, many of his facts group themselves under classes as to which statements can be made that are definite, and often were approximately accurate numerically, and thus he is at some advantage in seeking for causes and for results which lie below the surface, and are not easily seen, and in analyzing complex conditions into their elements and reconstructing a whole out of many elements. In smaller matters, indeed, simple experience will suggest the unseen. It will, for instance, put people in the way of looking for the harm to strength of character and to family life that comes from ill-considered aid to the thriftless, even though what is seen on the surface is almost sheer gain. By greater effort a large range of view, a more powerful exercise of the imagination are needed in tracking the true results of, for instance, many plausible schemes for increasing steadiness of employment. For that purpose it is necessary to have learned how closely connected are changes in credit, in domestic trade, in foreign trade competition, in harvests, in prices, and how all of these affect steadiness of employment for good and for evil. It is necessary to watch how almost every considerable economic event in any part of the western world affects employment in some trades, at least, in almost every other part. If we deal only with those causes of unemployment which are near at hand, we are likely to make no good cure of the evils we see, and we are likely to cause evils that we do not see. And if we are to look for those which are far off and weigh them in the balance, then the work before us is a high discipline for the mind. Again, when by a standard rule or any other device wages are kept specially high in any trade, imaginations set a going will try to track the lies of those who are prevented by the standard rule from doing work, of which they are capable at a price that people are willing to pay for it. Are they pushed up or are they pushed down? If some are pushed up and some pushed down, as commonly happens, is it that the many are pushed up and the few that are pushed down or the other way around? If we look at surface results, we may suppose that it is the many who are pushed up. But if, by the scientific use of the imagination, we think out all the ways in which prohibitions, whether on trade union authority or any other, prevent people from doing their best and earning their best, we shall often conclude that it is the many who have been pushed down and the few who have been pushed up. Partly under English influence, some Australasian colonies are making bold ventures, which hold out specious promise of greater immediate comfort and ease to the workers. Australasia has indeed a great reserve of borrowing power in her vast landed property, and should the proposed shortcuts issue in some industrial decadence, the fall may be slight and temporary. But it is already being urged that England should move on similar lines, and a fall for her would be more serious. What is needed and what we may hope is coming in the near future is a larger study of such schemes of the same kind and by the same order of minds as are applied to judging a new design for a battleship with reference to her stability in bad weather. In such problems as this, it is the purely intellectual and sometimes even the critical faculties which are most in demand. But economic studies call for and develop the faculty of sympathy, and especially that rare sympathy which enables people to put themselves in the place, not only of their comrades but also of other classes. This class sympathy is, for instance, strongly developed by inquiries, which are becoming every day more urgent, of the reciprocal influences which character and earnings, methods of employment and habits of expenditure exert on one another, of the ways in which the efficiency of a nation is strengthened by and strengthens the confidence and affections which hold together the members of each economic group. The family, employers and employees in the same business, citizens of the same country, of the good and evil that are mingled in the individual unselfishness and the class selfishness of professional etiquette and of trade union customs, and of movements by which our growing wealth and opportunities may best be turned to account for the well-being of the present and coming generations. The economist needs imagination, especially in order that he may develop his ideals, but most of all he needs caution and reserve in order that his advocacy of ideals may not outrun his grasp of the future. After many generations have passed, our present ideals and methods may seem to belong to the infancy rather than to the maturity of man. One definite advance has already been made. We have learnt that every one until proved to be hopelessly weak or base is worthy of full economic freedom. But we are not in a position to guess confidently to what goal the advance thus begun will ultimately lead. In the later Middle Ages a rough beginning was made of the study of the industrial organism, regarded as embracing all humanity. Each successive generation has seen further growths of that organism, but none has seen so large a growth as our own. The eagerness with which it has been studied has grown with its growth, and no parallel can be found in earlier times to the breadth and variety of the efforts that have been made to comprehend it. But the chief outcome of recent studies is to make us recognize more fully, than could be done by any previous generation, how little we know of the causes by which progress is being fashioned, and how little we can forecast the ultimate destiny of the individual organism. Some harsh employers and politicians, defending exclusive class privileges early in the last century, found it convenient to claim the authority of political economy on their side, and they often spoke of themselves as economists. And even in our own time that title has been assumed by opponents of generous expenditure on the education of the masses of the people, in spite of the fact that living economists with one consent maintain that such expenditure is a true economy, and that to refuse it is both wrong and bad business from a national point of view. But Carlisle and Ruskin, followed by many other writers who had no part in their brilliant and ennobling poetical visions, have without examination held the great economists responsible for sayings and deeds to which they were really averse, and in consequence there has grown up a popular misconception of their thoughts and character. The fact is that nearly all the founders of modern economics were men of gentle and sympathetic temper, touched with the enthusiasm of humanity. They cared little for wealth for themselves, they cared much for its wide diffusion among the masses of the people. They opposed anti-social monopolies, however powerful. In their several generations they supported the movement against the class legislation, which denied to trade unions privileges that were open to associations of employers, or they worked for a remedy against the poison which the old poor law was instilling into the hearts and homes of the agricultural and other laborers, or they supported the factory acts in spite of the strenuous opposition of some politicians and employers who claimed to speak in their name. They were without exception devoted to the doctrine that the well-being of the whole people should be the ultimate goal of all private effort and all public policy. But they were strong in courage and caution. They appeared cold because they would not assume the responsibility of advocating rapid advances on untried paths, for the safety of which the only guarantees offered were the confident hopes of men whose imaginations were eager, but not steadied by knowledge nor disciplined by hard thought. Their caution was perhaps a little greater than necessary, for the range of vision, even of the great seers of that age, was in some respects narrower than is that of most educated men in the present time. When, partly through the suggestions of biological study, the influence of circumstances in fashioning character is generally recognized as the dominant fact in social science. Economists have accordingly now learnt to take a larger and more hopeful view of the possibilities of human progress. They have learnt to trust that the human will, guided by careful thought, can so modify circumstances as largely to modify character, and thus to bring about new conditions of life still more favorable to character, and therefore to the economic as well as the moral well-being of the masses of the people. Now, as ever, it is their duty to oppose all plausible shortcuts to that great end, which would sap the springs of energy and initiative. The rights of property, as such, have not been venerated by those masterminds who have built up economic science, but the authority of the science has been wrongly assumed by some who have pushed the claims of vested rights to extreme and antisocial uses. It may well be, therefore, to note that the tendency of careful economic study is to base the rights of private property not on any abstract principle, but on the observation that in the past they have been inseparable from solid progress, and that therefore it is the part of responsible men to proceed cautiously and tentatively in abrogating or modifying even such rights as may seem to be inappropriate to the ideal conditions of social life. End of Principle of Economics, Book 1 by Alfred Marshall


Now, aside Africa, at least 112 people have died in the Western Indian state of Maharashtra. After torrential monsoon rains caused landslides and flooded low-lying areas, cutting off hundreds of villages. Part of India's west coast received up to 23 inches of rainfall over 24 hours, forcing authorities to evacuate people from vulnerable areas as they released water from dams. But were threatening to overflow. Motion Shahidi, Deputy Inspector General of the National Disaster Response Force, said on Friday that about 32 houses had collapsed in a landslide in the Rheigat district. Rivers were also overflowing in the southern states of Karnataka and Telangana, where authorities were monitoring the situation. This is a landslide incident in the Rheigat district of Maharashtra, in which about 32 houses have collapsed in the landslide due to excessive rain. And the rescue operation is there, going on, and DRF is there. As per the latest report, we have recovered about 32 bodies, and some more are said to be trapped there. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.