OK, so I want to comment on three things that are, as you can appreciate, I am not a string theorist, but that are related to other kinds of physics, and I think that there are some points that at least will justify why I'm interested in the subject. So number one, so I wanted to understand a way to understand simply the bound to chaos. So as you know, classically there is no bound to chaos, so one would ask how does the H-bar enter into this game. So one way to introduce a measure of chaos that is quite traditional in quantum people is to do a Losch meet echo experiment. So what you do is you start somewhere, you evolve, and then if you came back you would come back to the same place, both quantum and classically.  This is what is called the Losch meet echo context. So you go, small kick, and come back. Now take any operator, measure it, you want to see the difference having done this circuit and not having done this circuit. So this is the trace of A squared and the trace of A times A transformed. This gives you a measure of how different the quantum or classical situations are before and after. And it has to do with chaos, and indeed you expect it to go exponentially with a time independently of who are the operators, which will enter only in the pre-factor, and independently of the nature of the kick. This is already a nontrivial statement, the fact that this you get an exponential that doesn't depend on anything except the system itself. This is something that was known since, I don't know, some 15 years or something like that. And what is nice about it is that there's plenty of simulations and experiments so that we know that this regime, because of course this does happen only for a regime in time, we know that it exists. Yeah? How can it be completely independent of the operators? Oh, I can tell you why. Because the operator you're doing, or let's say the operator with which you do the kick, is going to give you a kick in some direction and then this is going to amplify. Now one thing we know about Lyapunovian stability is that whatever the initial thing in the end, because it is chaotic, it samples every possible direction and it amplifies at least if you only care about the exponent, it amplifies in the same way. This is just Pesin's theorem, the existence of Lyapunov exponent. If you take the operator to be the identity operator. Definitely. So you have to, it depends on the operator, the regime in which it is independent of the operator, of course, will be hidden, I mean the times at which something will, this regime will happen. But there is such a regime. That's the important point. I mean, if the system is chaotic, there is... We're restricted, right? Oh, you will get the restriction in a second, I promise. So, okay, so now let me expand this difference. Well, as usual, you expanded the B that was in the exponent, came down. This was a kick, blah, blah, blah. And then it takes a line to get to this formula, which is the Larkin of Sheeniko formula, the famous four-point function, okay? Yeah. On the previous slide. Yeah. With Loschmitt, actually you get exponential decays, not exponential growths. No, no, no, here, yes. Oh, sorry, yeah. No, here what's happens, this is zero at equal times, the way I defined it. I agree with you. In the calculation of Loschmitt, Eiko, Offscher, Laverde and Pastaski, you get a negative. But in this calculation, you get a growth. And look, this, when the times are equal, A transform is A, and this is zero. But you do get an exponential growth and you will see it in a minute. But I agree with you. The usual calculation of Loschmitt Eiko is you have a lump, you go, you come back, and then the overlap goes down. But the way you do it here, in any case, it takes a line to get from what I wrote to this, your old friend, okay? So, as was remarked, you want this to be localized. You cannot take the trace of anything. So one way to do it would be the most traditional one is that the operator A is a lump, is something that has a support in a bounded place in face space. The other way is you could choose this. You see, you take an operator A with anything smooth, but you multiply it left and right because you want it to be a Hermitian by this quarter of the partition function. And this is the choice that Maldassina, Schenker, and Stanford used. So if you plug this inside here, essentially, you get their four point function. Up to two point functions which are not interesting, because they just subtract constants away, okay? So here you see the connection is, I don't know, this has been implicit in, as far as I remember, Kitayev's talk. He mentions, I'm not being original here, but I think it's a nice way to see it. Sorry, can we go back to one of the precise connections with Lashman? I don't see it. So you go, you take an operator A, transform it according to this transformation, you see what you're doing. You're going, evolving with T, H, giving it a little kick. It's an evolution with B, and then coming back with minus the Hamiltonian. So if T is zero, and of course, B is not there, or even if B is there, but this is a very small, A is almost the same as a transform. If B and T are zero, clearly they are the same. So that this subtraction is going to be zero. As T grows, this is going to modify, this transformation, which is the Lashman transformation, is going to modify this operator A. And now I'm measuring the difference, this is just a kind of scalar product. I'm measuring the difference between the untransformed thing and the overlap between the two. It's unconventional from the point of view of Lashman's echo, but it gives you directly Larkin of Sheenikova. I guess that their inspiration must have been something like that. Okay, so the bound, as you know, is that this Lyapunov has to be smaller or equal than this quantity. Okay, so as you know better than I, it's nice because it's a symptom, and a symptom of something. Black holes have this symptom, SYK model has this symptom. So that's the reason I think why it is interesting for you. Okay, this I don't need to tell you. And then the proof is a proof, the one that they gave, is a proof that you can follow. It's not hard, it's three, three, four lines, it uses elementary stuff. Still, my personal feeling when I read it is that I understand each line, but it doesn't appeal to me in a concrete way, but that's me. So I wanted to do a model where this could be understood and do semi-classics. So I know that I can have the Lyapunov I like, if I do classics, classical. Okay, what happens when I turn on H bar? So, okay, I want H bar small, I want to do semi-classics. But if I do H bar small, as you see from the bound, the quantity that matters is beta times H bar. So, evidently, the temperature has to be very low if I want to get something interesting. So I'm forced, if I want to do semi-classics, to go to very low temperature.  Well, typically there is a ground state and then you're sitting at the bottom in the ground state and you're not doing much. So, of course, you don't have chaos, but it's not interesting.  It just vibrates, you cannot do much more than that. So, you realize already that the potential like this is not going to be interesting. It's not going to violate the bound, but it's going to satisfy it in a trivial way at very low temperatures. So, what you need is a potential that is chaotic. This was mentioned by Dima a minute ago, that you need a potential that has a flat bottom so that you can still move and be chaotic or have a chance of being chaotic at very low temperatures. Potentials with a manifold that is flat. This is traditional for solid state people, because when you want to confine electrons in a quantum wire, you do exactly that. You make a potential that forces you to be on the wire and then along the wire you move freely, okay? So, this is very, very traditional and the natural thing to do is to parametrize the bottom of the potential and then care only about that bottom and forget about the rest. So, you do some, you write in coordinates, appropriate coordinates, the manifold, whatever it is, which we will suppose it has more than two dimensions. And in the appropriate coordinates, you get a Riemannian form and then you get a thing like this. This is just ordinary C number quantum mechanics on a curved space. So, this is going to be our model. This has some chance of being interesting because even at very low temperature, you can still move here. And hence, you can go away and be chaotic. Otherwise, okay, so now you quantize this. This has a history amongst other things. One of the most beautiful examples of quantum chaos is a two dimensional hyperboloid and a particle moving freely on it. It has a very, very long tradition starting with Good's wheeler. Okay, so how does it look like, classically? Well, classically, as you probably know, when you have a surface like this and you have three particles moving on a surface, they move along geodesics. So, they take the geodesics. If you fire the same particle with twice the speed, it will move along the same geodesic, but faster. Okay, so this is what it is. And then the question immediately is, okay, fine, and now I can fire it as quickly as I can. And then I can get the Lyapunov I like because trajectories, if I move faster, will separate faster. These two trajectories in space, they are written on the space. I can transverse them at different velocities. Okay, if I do it very quickly, then this separation is going to grow very fast. And this is the Lyapunov exponent. So, what stops me from going very fast and having the Lyapunov I like? Classically nothing. So, here goes the semi-classical calculation I did. You want to calculate this four point function, the one that came from the Los Miteco if you like. Well, you want to calculate it in the semi-classical approximation. So, what you do is you plug in fanflex formula for the propagators. It turns out that these pieces, the one that contains the temperature, are diffusion, simple diffusion on this surface. You can convince yourself that this operator, the free Laplacian on a surface, is just diffusion, but there's very short episodes of diffusion. The way it is scaled, and this is what you get. You get four times the same trajectory and two punctuated by four short diffusion episodes. You do the calculation, it's not hard, it's tedious but not hard. And what you get is what I'm going to describe without the calculation. So, without the calculation what you get, you can see what you're going to get very easily. So, the geodesic deviation written in space, the separation of two trajectories, is given by an equation like this. It's the separation. This I took it from a textbook in gravitation. Anyway, the separation is a function of Riemann's tensor. That's the textbook of this word. No, I pirated it from the web, so I cannot tell you about its finance patterns. Yeah, okay, so this is Riemann's tensor, it doesn't matter. What you get is that the separation between the trajectories scales exponentially. So, it's two, if you want railways drawn on this manifold that separate exponentially with a characteristic length. What I want to say here and is important is that if you do this in n dimensions, this length scales with square root of n. You can convince yourself, but the reason is very simple. A Lyapunov thing is an intensive quantity, it's not an extensive quantity. Each coordinate expands and it expands in the same way. And what you're taking essentially is the maximum of the expansion of all of them. So, if you want to do it and because it is divided by the original, the fact that it's n dimension doesn't change anything. What does change is that the distance you move to get the same separation is the combined distance in all the coordinates. This is where you get the other square root of n. Believe me, it's true, you have to do a picture and then you convince yourself. But don't you need negative curvature for this? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. If you want to have a Lyapunov exponent, I should have said this. You do need that somewhere in your space there are bumps with negative curvature. Yes, absolutely. If not, it's going to be true but boring. Okay, so if you want the Lyapunov Lyapunov, you have to multiply the speed and divide it by this separation. You're taking the two railways with faster moving trains. And then it's easy to see that this is what your Lyapunov Lyapunov is. It scales correctly with size. And then you begin to compare. Let us, now this is what enters the semi-classical calculation. You want to compare this length with the phase-phase de Broglie length. Now the de Broglie length is given for a particle. So if I wanted for n particles, I have to use Pythagoras theorem. And this is where this square root of n comes from. The fact is, let me compare these two quantities. So just to see when are quantum effects kicking in. So I compare, I compare, I compare. I just put the things where they are. All the two pi's I'm losing on my way. So I have nothing to say about the two pi's. But when you get to the end, this is the comparison that counts. So for this system, but then if you look at the semi-classical calculation, you see this properly. But there is not, no, from the physics point of view, there is not much more than what I'm telling you now. Is that this is the comparison. And the meaning then of the Lyapunov exponent is very clear. You have trajectories written in this space that separate at a characteristic distance given by this L0, which it's typically something to do with a negative curvature that you have. It's that kind of scale. And you have to compare it with the De Broglie length in this phase space. And the meaning of the bound is simply that you cannot scatter along a distance, a wave front, along a distance that is much shorter than the wavelength, which to my mind sounds perfectly reasonable. So at least, I don't know, I'm not saying that this wasn't implicit in the literature. It was, but I think that it's a good way to see it, a nice way to see it. So can you clarify better the square root of L? Yeah. Of course, I will take C9 billion, not in two dimensions, in three and four, five hundred dimensions. So I would say that my collision time, typical collision, in which I start to deviate, it will be still the size of the box, you just divide it by the size of the box. The dimension will not enter here. Put it this way. Put it this way. You want to convince yourself that the Lyapunov exponent is something, the maximum, the maximum. We're talking about the maximum. There's also a notion of the magura pentagon. No, no, no, no, no. I'm only a patient to be the sum of hope, was it? I know this, but no, I want the maximum. So the maximum, you want to say that it scales like one, not like n, which is something that is not been proven proven, but we all believe. So there are cases where it's not even true, but mostly we all believe. In order that that is compatible with trajectories being written in space and transverse at speed, you can convince yourself that in space, this has to scale square, that has to scale within. What's the opinion on how the curvature scales at the moment? I mean, you're changing from one manifold to another. Sure, sure, sure, sure. But my curvature, I keep it as a parameter, and you will see it in a second. I'm not saying for the moment anything of how long. Is it the Riemann tensor or the Riemann tensor? If you trace, of course, you're going to get the curvature. I keep it order one per degree of freedom. The curvature length, I keep it order one per degree of freedom. Yeah, so it's like Riemann is scale. Yeah, so what is it at the end of the day? What does this mean? Well, this is the semi-classical computation. I put units into this. So on this side, I put the quantity that is bound, h bar, beta, the Lyapunov. On this side, I do 1 over the De Broglie length. So here, I'm very classical, and I'm getting quantum as I move to here. And this is just 1 over L saying that your quantum Lyapunov exponent is equal to the classical Lyapunov exponent, which is OK for the semi-classical limit. This is what my semi-classical calculation confirms. It's not a surprise. Then you go up, and then typically, this breaks down the moment that this thing becomes comparable with either the curvature or the typical Lyapunov length. They are proportional. So once you get here, your wavelength is of the order of the features of your potential, and then you no longer can use a semi-classical approximation. It's not true. And what happens? Well, I don't know exactly what happens. One of the things that was pointed out to me by Levioff is that localization effects appear. So no longer the image of a wave front has any sense. I am not even sure that here the notion of Lyapunov, it's not that the Lyapunov is small. Maybe it doesn't even exist. For a Lyapunov to exist, I need an exponential in time. And I cannot even, I don't even know whether there is one. My feeling is that, and this is what happens in such a year, to get something that is interesting up to zero, you need that your system hierarchically has all the possible lengths. In other words, that it is a critical system. And you can think of critical opalescence when the system is critical. It scatters light in all frequencies. And this is why it's white, the liquid. So I think that, but this is just blah, blah. You need to have a complete hierarchy of lengths and enhance be critical in order to take advantage of all the possible lengths as you go to zero temperature. But that's OK. Yeah. So does that contradict the idea that if you have a non-extremal black hole, you still expect to have this bound, right? Sorry.  I think the bound for chaos works. The bound for chaos is true always. And it's saturated for any black hole. So you don't need to have an extremal black hole. Whereas the non-trivial infrared conformal, sort of, one last work only in the new. OK. OK. So what you're saying, if I translate it to my language, maybe criticality is not necessary. I don't know what happens here to tell you the truth. The only thing is that this guy who comes very nicely with a 1 over T, 1 over, it has to stop. It might either turn round. But one thing that is interesting is it becomes of order 1, which means that even in a model or in a system, you find something of order 1, but not the bound. Don't be so happy about it. It's sort of normal to my mind. OK. Let me, let me, now I pass to another thing. If you want to ask some other question, I'm going to make a slight intermezzo on glass theory, and then I'm going to come back to something like this. So please stop me if. So a little bit of prehistory, very little, just to be able to justify what I'm going to say at the end. So this family of models, you recognize, this is a Gaussian, random thing. These are bosons now. These are C numbers. And because they are C numbers, you have to constrain this somehow so that otherwise this diverges. So one traditional way is to make these guys B plus or minus 1, constrain them to B. You could add a quart or some power to keep it that way. Or more nicely, you can make them be on a sphere. Make them be on a sphere is something that takes you very, very close to the study of tensor models, because it's a recipe whereby you do not break rotational invariance. So it's interesting. But this tensor, unlike the ones we heard yesterday, is symmetric. And if it were not, only the symmetric part would count in any case. And the quantum version, well, you see it's not big deal, has also been studied. This is 80s. Why is it interesting? Because surprisingly enough, these models are excellent metaphors of what glasses are. They give you a kind of mean field of glasses. Glasses are made of particles. You don't see any particles here. And there are no particles here. But believe me, and it took 20-something years to be really convinced, these are baby glasses, which you can beat to death. And we know a lot about these. OK, what do they do? The quantum one, this is a phase diagram, H bar T. So there is what I would call a liquid phase. You probably would call it metallic phase. And there is a glass phase. What do I mean by glass phase? I mean that if I start in a random configuration and put the system in contact with a thermal bath at a temperature here, it will never equilibrate. It will take infinite time to equilibrate. Infinite in the thermodynamic limit, time to equilibrate. This is the definition of a glass. In the quantum case, how do you bound delta? Because there was no. In the quantum case, you still put it on a big sphere. OK, but the Hamiltonian was not on the sphere. Sorry, sorry, should have added. Yeah, or of course you can do the potential that bounds you there and square it. Yeah, yeah, sure, sure, you need it. OK, how do I know that it never equilibrates? Because I write a correlation function. And the correlation function, instead of tending to something, I plot it with different starting times. And as time passes, the correlation time gets longer and longer. And it never stabilizes. So if I start the correlation after an hour, it takes an hour to decay. If I start it after 10 hours, it takes 10 hours to decay and so on and so forth. This is called aging. It is just telling you that the system is getting more and more correlated with time and with a never-ending process. This is this region. There are many states which are almost degenerate. You will have plenty of that in a few minutes. But what I want to say about this is that when we solve this, we could solve this part easily because there is a fast part, just like in SYK. And then this slow part has the famous pseudo-parameterization invariance. It is as pseudo as SYK is pseudo. And the difference is that the parameter is not the temperature. The parameter is the age. At what time have you started your thing? Very quickly, just to tell you that this for us was an enemy and not a friend, because we were never able to do the matching of which is the good reparameterization that matches the other regime. It is a formidably hard problem. I am reading your papers because I want to see if I can steal some techniques from you to do it. So my case on how I understand, Sajdev, he wants to have not a spin glass. I'm coming to this in a second. I am coming to this in a second. Yeah, indeed, this is bad for you and bad for Sajdev and bad for Antoine Georges and so on. These people wanted to have something that was still a liquid at zero temperature, a metal at zero temperature. And so this is bad because you don't want this because you want in order to profit more from quantum nature, you want it. This phase not to be there. So this is not a model that will interest you. I'm telling you this because from the prehistory point of view, it explains why I'm here in part. We know a lot of things about this reparameterization. And it's not exactly the same. This one is in real time. Yours is in imaginary time. It has dimension zero, for example, not 1 over Q or whatever. But we have and we know some things that you don't see in your literature about this one. But we do not know some very many other things. And it's interesting for us. A sigma model of the reparameterizations was attempted. I believe now that I read the Schwarzian one of your literature, I believe that it was incomplete. But it was a very nice try because this reparameterization has a physical meaning and plays a physical role here. OK, this is very quickly just so that you know. So that you keep it in mind maybe sometime you will have more time to. Now a model. As you see, this model is not nice for the reason that was pointed out. So how do I do a model? Can I do a model with these glass things that at least is a cousin of SYK, a bosonic cousin of SYK? So here is my model. You have to construct it by levels. So you start with the Hamiltonian I did a minute ago. Let's put it on the sphere to make it easy. And I consider stochastic dynamics for this. So stochastic dynamics means that I do gradient descent plus a little bit of noise. If the system were not a glass or where it is not a glass, this allows you to go to the Gibbs Boltzmann measure. And this has been studied ad nauseum because this is the one that we use when we want to show that the system is a glass in this region. Solving analytically this dynamics for that model, for this model, you show that within the glass phase. Sorry, the classical version in this case. You can do the quantum too. It shows you that inside this region, the system never thermalized. Never thermalized this. So that's for the moment not what we want. So because you have a Langevin equation, you know that probability this is classical but noisy. Probability is a probability cloud that evolves in phase space. But please do not confuse this with a quantum wave function. This has nothing to do with wave functions. This is just your ordinary Fokker Planck equation for a distribution of probability evolving in phase space. For the moment, I haven't got the model I want to use. Is there the symphetic form in front of the? Not necessarily. I didn't put the p square. You could have put and then you have the. Just for the Hamiltonian evolution, this is really gradient? This is really gradient. You could do it selected too. You could you could do both. But yeah, but in this case, both have been studied. Both have been studied. Yeah, it will change. But for what I am doing, it's better to keep it first orderly. You will see why. OK, so this is the evolution. Now, one thing that perhaps you've seen, it's completely standard, but you have to take my word for it. This is a differential equation. It's a Fokker Planck equation, which gives you the evolution. This and this are completely equivalent. This L is the one that makes your probability evolve according to the ensemble of these trajectories. So if I write p, sorry, if I write, now the question is what is the form of L? Well, the form of L is what it is. I can write it for you. No problem. But what you should know now, maybe if you haven't seen it, it's not immediately obvious, is that if you change bases with an Hermitian, sorry, you change bases with this transformation, this operator can be written like that. And this is the Hamiltonian. And this is the Hamiltonian that I define as my quantum Hamiltonian, which has nothing to do with the quantum version of this one. It is taking the Fokker Planck operator as by fiat a quantum Hamiltonian. Why do I do this? Because I will try to convince you that it has a few properties that are what we are looking for. OK? But the thing is. And conjugated variables. Conjugated variables are the derivative with respect to eta and eta. So this is you. Yes. You've got this vector field, which is your gradient flow. Yeah. Is your L just a lead derivative along the gradient? I guess so, yeah. But there is noise. I don't know the lead derivative has that. But there is some noise that allows. Added in with the noise. Yes. But you're just preserving probability. You're just preserving probability, indeed. So when you change it, you get this Hermitian thing. And now notice that the temperature, why do I call temperature T s? Because it's not going to be the temperature of my model. This is now a mere auxiliary parameter. But this mere auxiliary parameter, as you can see from here, plays the role of h bar. There is no h bar in this problem, of course. It's an artificial, completely artificial thing. OK? And this is what you will recognize if I had put two fermions here, a dagger i a j. This you would recognize as supersymmetric quantum mechanics of the beginning of the 80s. It's a zero-dimensional n equals 2 supersymmetry, which is a well-known fact that stochastic equations are directly related to supersymmetric quantum mechanics. There's nothing new here. So now bear with me. Let us consider this model with the h that is here. So this is not the quantum version of this model. This is a very artificial thing I did. And now the evolution under this law of this model is something like the imaginary time evolution of this Hamiltonian. About the real time evolution with this Hamiltonian, I have no connection to anything. I could call it probably diffusion with imaginary noise, but that doesn't sound very. No, I'm not restricted, in principle. They are restricted because h contains some term that keeps you on the sphere. Because due to square. Yeah, but let's say that you have a term that is strong and that keeps you stuck on the sphere, and you include it in h. OK, so now what about this model? This model, we know everything. That's a nice thing. Just to be sure, I almost see the cube. This is positive. This is positive definite indeed. It has a zero eigenvalue with non-negative positive definite. It has a zero. It has a normalizable ground state. Indeed, because it means it's a Boltzmann distribution for the original model. So it is the lowest you can get. It means that it doesn't evolve anymore. It's zero. Which is an old statement that when you map diffusion into supersymmetry to say that the system equilibrates and has an equilibrium is the same as to say that the supersymmetry is unbroken. OK, so now what do I know? Well, my original model, the one with the j's, and it would be very, very nice if we could do things like you do. But we know a lot about this. It has a landscape that is as follows. It has exponentially many minima, the energy. You can count them. The lower you are in energy, the more stable they are, which is sort of reasonable. They are a little more round. As you go up, you meet on your way more and more and more minima. And you get to a threshold level. This growth is exponential. They proliferate exponentially up to a threshold level when they are all marginal. And then above that level, there are no longer any minima. There are subtle points, but no minima. Almost all of the levels are very close to the threshold level because I guess that you know this. When something grows exponentially, the crust takes essentially all the volume. So I don't know. I say I guess you know this because whenever I hear about the surface of a black hole, but I don't think I don't know if this has any significance. OK, now what do you know from the theory of sarcastic whatever is that when I consider my quantum within quotation marks Hamiltonian, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the states. Now quantum states, the eigenvalues of the artificial quantum Hamiltonian and the minima with their fluctuations of the original landscape. In particular, the lowest of the lowest is the equilibrium one, the lowest. And all these eigenvectors are related to the phases, the many phases, of the original stuff. Now one thing I didn't tell you is that between these states, the barriers are exponentially large, except for the guys who are very near the threshold which have a lowest. You can think that you have to go up to the threshold and down to go from one to the other. And so the eigenvalues here, you can prove that it's the one over the lifetime of these phases. So because these phases are stable in the thermodynamic limit, their barriers are order n, it means that there is ground state degeneracy because there are many, many, many eigenvalues that are extremely close to zero because their lifetime is exponential in n, and this is one over the lifetime. So you have eigenvalues, and this reminds me a lot of the last transparency of DEMA, you have a lot of things that collapse. Although there is no true degeneracy, the spectrum is made of levels that are to first order in the thermodynamic limit degenerate. And what about this? There is a degeneracy, every state, not at zero, has a partner, at least one. What does that degeneracy mean? Every, ah, sorry, should have said. The full supersymmetric stuff, what you say is absolutely true, and this degeneracy gives you that's Witten's thing for the Morse theory. But here I am confined to zero fermion subspace because this is what relates to the diffusion. But you are free, given that I'm taking the liberty of calling this quantum, you are perfectly free to take all the fermions subspaces. This, I'm not describing now, but, ah. What information sits there? The entire Morse theory. So to go from one to its partner, it's to go from a minimum to a saddle, and then you get all the Morse inequalities and everything. It's very good. The full supersymmetric quantum mechanic, but there is no fermions in this theory. Here, there are no fermions because I remain at the zero fermion subspace. But you could put them. You have them because? No, no, no, because the total number of fermions is conserved. So I'm free to look at the matrix block that contains zero fermions. That's the one that is stochastic. In a previous life, I studied the stochastic dynamics in the other fermion subspaces to obtain a method to find barriers. But that's another story. OK. So now I think I can tell you this why I say I know a lot, but really a lot, about this spectrum. Because I know almost everything about the distribution of minimum barriers here. I can tell you how many of these go like n to the something, how many of these have e to the minus n. Just what Lima was saying a while ago. I can also tell you how much they hybridize because the barrier gives you an idea of how they tunnel, you tunnel from one to the other. So you can. No, if they have random matrix statistics. Not here, surely not. Not unless you go to level separations that are exponentially small with the size. There is this trade-off between size and different. We didn't actually do the calculation about the level statistics, but I'm sure you can do it because we know pretty much everything about this. What we, one more thing that we did calculate is now the bad news or the more or less bad news. So notice that the system doesn't move in this landscape. It moves in a landscape that is more like this one. So it's the gradient squared. This is why it's positive and this correction term. So that's the effective potential of your system. And, okay, so now you can say, okay, let me take this model seriously and calculate the partition function. Partition function, you can calculate the specific heat and it gives you a power law, not trivial power law, but unfortunately it's not one like you like. The fermion nature that we don't have here in this version is the one that is responsible for the one. Here you get 1.5. But it is a non-trivial exponent. It has a zero temperature critical point in the sense that nothing happens. There is no, when you do real-time dynamics on this, there is no phase transition up to zero, just like in SYK. It has, of course, ground state entropy, which is nothing but the number of metastable states that the log of the number of metastable states that live forever. This is what glass people call the complexity. Because all the metastable states that live forever are flat in their spectrum, which is one over the lifetime, how many of these you have is how many metastable states, everlasting metastable states you have. That's a zero temperature entropy. And if you want the entropy at a given temperature, the entropy, it is the number of metastable states that have a lifetime that is the inverse of that temperature. Okay, so we are playing with this artificial construction because we know things. Now, we tried the real-time dynamics with an I. Remember that the relation between diffusion in the original model came through a Langevin process. And this one mapped to a Fokker Planck, which is a naturally imaginary time thing. If I want to put an I in the dynamics, this corresponds to nothing, but you can calculate it. At least for Q equals two, what we get is that there is a time scale that is the temperature squared and not the temperature. So it goes to infinity, this time scale, like as the temperature goes to zero. Sorry, one over the temperature squared. One over the temperature. So you know that the time scale of SYK goes like beta. This one goes like beta squared, at least for Q equals two. We are in the process of calculating it for another Qs, but we haven't done that yet. The equations you get to solve this in real-time are very similar to the ones of SYK, except that of course the correlation functions are symmetric, these are bosons, and except that you have three order parameters instead of one. Instead of having one G, you have three Gs, which are related through an internal symmetry, which has to do with the supersymmetry of the regional problem. We have not yet calculated the Lyapunov exponent, but it's doable and we're doing it so just to see what it gives. So for the moment, the only thing I can say is that you can understand very well the zero temperature subspace and what is their structure. When we'll have a Lyapunov exponent, if we're lucky enough that it is as large as it can be, it would be nice, but we will find out. So just to go back to the original stuff, you see that the fact that you need a well that is flat at the bottom for bosonic systems is realized in this model, here coming from, let's say, the supersymmetry of the model. And that's all, only, okay. So why am I interested in these things? Well, first of all, simple-minded elementary results. I think that many of these bounds are elementary results that should be explainable in an undergraduate course and I think that they should be written in this. Not the fact of saturating them, but the fact that the bounds exist should be undergraduate stuff and one has to work to make it such. Then, glassy ideas applied to these field theoretical systems, I don't know, but maybe something of interest. These models come from the world of spin glasses. And above all, I want to learn some of the techniques and the things that you use. So thank you very much. Yes, so this T.S. temperature that entered in the Langevin equation. It's become H bar of the new model. It will become H bar, but more importantly, what is its relation with the parameters and distribution of the J.I.? Nothing. You have your J's and then you apply your Langevin equation at a given temperature. Okay, so the J's are fixed once and for all. Yes, and then if you want, you can say that you tune their common amplitude, but you can say also that you just change the temperature. So the original Hamiltonian H that you wrote for the Q... Doesn't contain... It's not a disorder. It is a disorder, but the J's are random variables. Are random variables, but their distribution is unrelated to the... It's unrelated. So we heard yesterday about the Mellon models and so on. So could the large N limit be the solution of the Hamiltonian of the Mellon? Well, the Mellon was, and this is something that was pointed out, is that it's J's with, I would put it, if you want, three kinds of firm. They talk to each index. It's not the same. So this matrix need not be symmetric and that's where you can do all this beautiful classification. If I understand correctly, one could aim at doing it for symmetric once which is the one relevant for us, but it's harder. So if we get, we are, there are plenty of reasons to want to know more about these models because they are also toy models of complexity of, like, algorithmic complexity. So if we knew more, we would be more than happy and it would have more than many applications. But the mathematicians know about these things, but doing this with rigor takes, as you know, a long time. And the second question, I didn't, can you elaborate on this intuition between you showed the flat ground state and the other hand, your different discrete number of vacuums have nothing to do with the flat direction. No, you're right. So what is the connection? Well, yes. So let me put it this way. It's as if you had, your potential is the one I drew. It has many minima near the threshold, a few deeper and a few deeper. Now, this was the original landscape. Now, essentially, the potential of the, let's say, artificial system is something like the prime square plus a small correction. So now, for every minimum, there is zero. For every minimum you have, and then it has some between minima, it's not zero, zero. However, half of the minima, because this is an exponential growth, live very close to the surface of the threshold and have a very small barrier.  So have an order one barrier. So some of these bumps between zero and zero are order one, which is not the same as being zero, but it means that with some temperature, you can move. But this structure is responsible, I believe, for the fact that we don't get beta, we get beta squared as a time for the relaxation of the system. Gary? If I understand it, your first construction of this path and then back together with a kick was based on a purely classical definition of chaos.  And it's the perturbations around this four-time bounce that gives you the commutator. If you want larger h-bars, then of course. But my question is slightly different. So for any Hamiltonian system, the construction works. The construction works, what you're not guaranteed is that you do have a Lyapunov exponent. This commutator could give you zero. Now, I like to think of quantum mechanics as classical mechanics. As long as you have a finite dimensional Hilbert's phase, then you have a Hamiltonian flow on complex projective space. And so you can translate all of the equations into the language of Hamiltonian mechanics. It's a very particular type of Hamiltonian mechanics. So this makes me wonder whether if I used the purely classical language consistently, I would arrive at the same construction. Possibly, but somewhere h-bar has to creep in and tell you, listen, I'm not allowing you to have the Lyapunov that you want. The h-bar would creep in when you start talking about temperature, I think. Because I'm only interested in the evolution of the state's modular phasing, but I'm not concerned with their phases. Okay. But, sorry, so I'm a bit confused because I thought that of course in quantum mechanics, if you look at the evolution of the state, you never see chaos, obviously, because the evolution equation is the Schrodinger equation, which is linear. Yeah. But I think that this is why I think that as physicists, the nicest construction is the Loschmiedt construction, which you understand, Paris. And then I'm not sure I understand your point. Will there, maybe I'm missing a... Well, that's remarkable, isn't it? It may actually mean that you can't get using the Hamiltonian language to this picture of Loschmiedt. You will do that, okay? Come on, Sam. Again? Is it possible to see that... The Yaponoff exponential growth is asymptotic, but is it possible to see in these systems whether one can actually get to a time scale where the Yaponoff growth exists? Whether one is dominated by situations where the system is complex, but one never gets to this in particular. Well, this is something that we should be able to provide one day, I mean, calculating it and see. I think that there's going to be, there is every reason why you can throw the derivative and do part of the same. Only that, it's not exactly the same, the correlations are bosonic and so on. But you do have things that relax more and more slowly. And the trick of throwing a time derivative away is in glass theory, it's 30 years old and we know a lot and we have terrible gaps also in this knowledge. But it is something that is important for us because it tells us something very physical about glasses which I can tell you some other day. Okay, again?


August is hot and so are the savings at Appalachian Wireless, where all smartphones are 50% off. Even the 64, 128, and 256-gauge models, two-year agreement required. Better service, bigger savings. That's today's Appalachian Wireless and East Kentucky Network Company. Congressman Hal Rogers announced a number of grants today for Floyd and McGuffin counties. They include $1 million to Prestonsburg for an expansion on their wastewater treatment plant, nearly $2 million for a new Rails to Trails project from Prestonsburg to David, and nearly another $2 million in support of the Royalton Trail Town project. We're going to use that money there in Royalton Trail Town. We're going to use it in 15 acres along the Dawkins Line Rail Trail. And it's going to give places for people to stay, activities. We'll be having different things available there in that bottom. In that way, that will change the Dawkins Line Rail Trail because right now, people will come to it more because they're going to have something to do when they come to Royalton Trail Town. They're going to have some place to stay and that's the biggie. Prestonsburg Mayor Les Stapleton is excited for the new rail trail to David, but he says he and Victoria Doucette have a long-term goal in place. I know you've already talked with Vicki Doucette from Royalton Trail Towns. We're only about six and a half, seven miles from them. We're already working towards trying to join with them, make this a complete circuit, make it somewhere so they can enjoy both their rail tram, both our city and the Dawkins Trail. Our goal is 100% to move forward, try to get tourists in here, get people in here interested. Once they come here and see how much we've got to offer, they want to live here. When they want to live here, they bring jobs. It's a process. Just going to take some time to get there. The road to today's projects becoming a reality began two years ago when Congressman Hal Rogers earmarked a $195 million dollar bill to help projects in five different states that were hit hard by the decline of the coal industry. You're clearing a piece of property restoring an old coal mine that's going to be used for a shopping center. So this will allow you to build sewage to it in water and grate it down, perhaps build a road, that type of thing. Abandoned mine lands reclamation with a job producing impact. And so Kentucky is sharing that money. The state decides where it's spent. They'll spend it on local projects like the ones we mentioned. Another bill Congressman Rogers is supporting is called the Reclaim Act, which is similar to the Abandoned Mine Land Pilot Project. For more information on the Reclaim Act, visit howlrogers.house.gov. Reporting from Prestonsburg, I'm Sean Allen for EKB News.


Whole Story Quest audiobooks presents the Seaside Detective Agency by J. C. Williams, narrated by Fraser Blacksland. Chapter 1 The Private Dick Sam's dilapidated Ford Fiesta had many faults. The season dictated the level of inconvenience. In the summer, he'd overheat as the electric windows had blown a fuse, and in the winter the heat had produced less warm air than a flatulating hamster. The battery was less selective of the calendar month, losing its charge at will. Sam blew furiously into his cupped hands to warm them, but it had little effect. Worse still, the icy air in his dodgy Ford had already chilled his coffee. Whoever was in charge of the naming of things at the motor company had a poor sense of humour, indeed. As Fiesta was in fact the very last word that might have come to Sam's mind. Bollocks, he said, because there was little else one could say under the circumstances. He cracked the door open, tossing the tepid contents of his coffee cup unceremoniously through the gap. The outside air felt warmer than that inside Sam's car, so he held the door open ajar with his foot. He took the piece of A4 paper, sat on the dashboard, and looked intently at the printed-out picture of a rather striking woman wearing tight Lycra running clothes. His hands trembled. He could hardly concentrate due to the throbbing pain in his frozen fingers. Bloody chill-blanes, he said. He didn't actually know what chill-blanes was exactly, but he'd read it in a book once and liked the sound of the word. Every time his hands got cold after that, he told himself it must be a case of the chill-blanes. He sat the image of the attractive, well-fit woman on the steering wheel, facing him, removed his gloves, and then plunged his hands down the front of his trousers. Cold, cold! he said, squirming his hands now sandwiched between his inner thighs and omae, which is what he called his bullsack. The moist heat of this intimate area produced the desired result, providing a blessed reprieve and warming his hands. Figuring that some friction would enhance the effect further, he rubbed his palms on his hairy legs enthusiastically, in sharp back-and-forth motions like he was starting a fire. He leaned his head back on the headrest, and a smile spread across his face in direct relation to the heat expanding through his digits. His eyes heart- Sample complete. Ready to continue?


So I come down to Ponderosa skate park this morning to try to learn back smiths. Perfect little ledge spot here for me to learn back smiths on. All that's missing is my ability to do back smiths. Oh! G'day guys, just doing a bit of a voice over here. Otherwise this video would be extremely boring to watch. So sorry about the footage in the beginning. It's kind of messy. I don't know why it wasn't as clear as these clips here. This is me just getting warmed up, doing some basic stuff. Trying to get my legs warm. Trying to get my body warm. Little front board. I think I was trying to figure out how to lock in this trick. It's like a toe side pinch. So this is me figuring out the lock in and trying to figure out where to put my weight. That's me being scared to jump on a back smith. It's my first attempt. I got stuck. Second attempt, I didn't even lock. Third attempt, didn't even lock in at all. Fourth go, locked in the wrong side. Just quite a tough trick for me to learn.  So yeah. That one wasn't bad, but it was kind of a smifty 50. What I mean by smifty 50 is that I can back smith, but the board isn't deep, so it looks really lame. There's a smifty 50 right there. And the last one was kind of it, but it was kind of a smifty 50 as well. So it's day two back at Ponderosa today. I feel like a few of the smiths I did the other time I was here, they were dipped and my board was on the ledge, but they were few and far between. I've been getting heaps of smifty 50s and I don't like that. I want my board to be dipped and I want to be able to grind longer than just a foot and a half of the end of the ledge. The last one, I just, look at my eight dollar haircut. The last one I did, I feel like that was pretty dipped. I feel like there's a kind of motion you do to get into the back smith. It's kind of like a weird ollie kind of back 180-ish motion obviously because it's backside, but that was on the small ledge. I'm going to go to the main ledge I was skating the other day and see how it goes. So I feel like that was kind of, I'm starting to kind of grasp the idea of the trick now. So yeah. This is day three out at Ponderosa. I got my long lens with me this time I bought a long lens just for this video. So hopefully this video gets some views. So I can make my money back on that lens. But yeah, I'm kind of scared to jump into back smith right now. The smaller side of the ledge is like rusted as and I don't have wax. So I'm just going to have to put my big boy pants on today and try to hit the regular side of the ledge for the back smith. Another day, another back smith. And the same problems just keep happening. I either lock in on the wrong side or I completely miss my lock and my heel and my heel side wheel just kind of falls down off the ledge. I keep getting stuck. That was a decent lock in. I need to have my weight pushed back in the back seat. I feel like this trick is all back seat and I'm struggling with it.  That was a good dip, but I just stopped. That was a smith 250. That wasn't even anything. That was terrible. And that was another smith 250. So yeah, I'm really good at smith. I got stuck on that one. I'm really good at smith 250. I feel like I'd probably be good at that. There's another smith 250. I think it's a back salad or something. Probably be good at that trick because I think it's the same lock in but you just turn it. That was kind of another smith 250. That was a good back smith but I just fell out of it. I could back smith way better on this side of the ledge because it was shorter. I didn't have to pop as high and it felt more comforting popping out of that crack just there. So that was the best back smith that I got that day. Day three or day four, I don't know what day it is. Now I've been trying this back smith at Ponderosa.   Same bloke, same ledge, same trick. No results. Yeah, kick the board away, mate. I feel like some of that one was decent but it wasn't as dipped but maybe it's just the camera angle. That one was smith 250 again. That one was dipped but my weight went forward. Your weight needs to be back. That one was decent too but I just fell out of it. These ones get a bit better. That one was dipped really nice. That one was kind of better. And I think that's the best one that I got. You have to commit to like popping and throwing your shoulders that way.  I just, my weight wasn't right. So that one could have been good but I fell out. I'm trying to like get a nice controlled pull out. Some things I couldn't find on any YouTube tutorial on a back smith is like the pocket. So if I'm back, if I'm goofy, right? I'm back smithing. You want to pinch. Your weight has to be on this side of the board.  Look at that pinch. Because my problem was I was getting on like this and because my heel is over here, I just stop or pop out or just fall out. So I feel like your weight has to be pinched right here. That's a pinch you want on this side. So away from the ledge. Everyone's just like, just only at the point you put, that's all they say. I couldn't find a good back smith tutorial. So if this helps you in any way, please let me know. Yeah, I feel like I've explained it horribly but just this is how it works in my mind. I can back smith kind of, like I back smith from this ticket here. I don't know how many meters that is. That's probably like almost two meters. Yeah, they're not where they want them to be. I want to get like a nice pop out but I'll take what I can get. I might try a few more to get like a cleaner one. And then yeah. That was better. Trying to get my board on the ledge, you know? Just the hillside border on your, trying to get the hillside edge of the board on the ledge. Can't speak English anymore. I've been in America too long. I'm trying to be like this, so. How does that make sense? What? Because you guys don't speak English. Oh. Come here. So if you can imagine there's like an invisible line where the ledge is right here. I feel like that's where your weight needs to be. Is this invisible line right here? Between this pocket here, pressing down. And then this side of your hillside edge diagonally or catty cornered is what Americans say. To be like that. So then you're standing center of the ledge with the board's crooked. If that makes sense. I don't know. I'm figuring it out. So hopefully you guys figured out too. Let's go. It's not like shooting a score. I was just ringing because I was at Ponderosa skate park earlier today. And it appears that someone has defecated on the bottom of one of the ramps and it's quite smelly. And it's been there for a couple of days now. So I don't know what. Okay. Yeah. Yes, it's in the skate park. Can't miss it. Cool. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Bye. What happened?  Like they have some intestinal problems. I think it was so dark because it was just left in the sun. It was black. It was black as the ice spades. And that's what happens to human turds if you leave them in the sun. They get sunburned. They get burned like a subway cookie. You know those double dark chocolate subway cookies? That's what happened. So that's the video. I still can't backsmith. But I feel like I'm getting more confident at trying this trick.  But I can't. So that's something I'm just gonna have to keep chipping away at. I'm a little bit sunburned. As you can see, I went out skating all day today with no sunscreen, like an amateur. So now I'll look all shiny and blare. If you guys enjoyed this video and you guys found that it helped in any way, please comment below. If you have any tips or if you can see what I'm doing wrong, please comment below. Let me know. I'm trying to learn this thing with you guys. Unless you guys can already do it. And yeah, check out eveningmob.com. Pick something up. It's one way to support your boy. Yeah, hang tight. New video on the way after this one. Cheers for watching this one. I'll catch you guys in the next one.


This study found that lung cancer screening, LCS, detected several comorbidities in patients from developing countries, including cardiovascular disease, emphysema, osteoporosis, hepatic steatosis, and other conditions such as coronary artery calcifications and skeletal muscle atrophy. These findings suggest that LCS can be used to identify and treat comorbidities in developing countries. This article was authored by Julian Nascimento-Domatos, Carlos Eugenio Santiago Manuela Ziru, and others.


Hey everybody, my name is Katie Lee and I am the 4-H Foundation Regional Extension Agent for Covington County and today I'm in one of my favorite farms. I'm in a tree farm and tree farmers across the state are growing many different things that we use. Could be paper products or it could be the pecans that you might be using in your next pecan pie or the peaches that you guys love for your next peach ice cream. The cool thing is Alabama tree farmers have us covered for all of our daily needs. The largest industry in the state of Alabama is forestry. Alabama forests provide more than 122,000 jobs in timber production and in timber processing. The forestry contributes to over 13 billion dollars to the Alabama economy annually. We have over 23 million acres of land in Alabama that is forest. Lob lolly pines are the most prevalent tree in Alabama. They are a tall fast-growing evergreen that grow about two feet per year reaching height of 50 to 80 feet. That is the reason why a lot of farmers choose to plant the lob lolly pine. Another pine that is planted in Alabama is the longleaf pine which is the official state tree of Alabama. That is because the longleaf pine first made Alabama famous for its timber products during the 1800s. So much longleaf pine was harvested that there's not much left today. Right now efforts are being made across the state to restore longleaf pine ecosystems which is home to many endangered species like the gopher tortoise, the eastern indigo snake, and carnivorous plants. So what does a tree farmer do? They plant the seedlings and watch them grow. They thin the stands when trees become overcrowded and they have prescribed burns which help keep longleaf pine forest healthy. Freshly burned undergrowth helps make way for new green sprouts. Directly behind me is the stand of longleaf pines that was actually burned five years ago. If you look closely to the tree right here you can see the burn marks on the bark where the fire flames reached. So how does all of this affect your life? Think about all the things you use daily. Everything from wood furniture to your baseball bat to your toilet paper even your musical instruments is all made from wood. In fact we use over 5000 wood products daily. So the next time you see a tree farmer thank them for everything that they do. Hello my name is Tanya Kirkland and I am the 4-H Foundation Regional Extension Agent for Henry County. Today we're going to show you how to make some pinecone flowers and some pinecone flower bouquets. First you want to put on some gloves to keep the pine combs from sticking you. Pick up some needle nose pliers, loppers, or even some heavy duty scissors. Sometimes you can even break them in half to make two separate flowers.  To make a pinecone with a stem you want to use a hot glue gun and hot glue your stick to the end of the pinecone. Some of the stems you can go ahead and paint to make it look like a real stem of a flower. Now you want to add your dirt or your foam to your flower pot add marbles or even rocks to the top for decoration in preparation to make your bouquet. For the final step you will take your finished pinecone flowers and add them to the base of your flower pot. Once you are finished putting in the arrangement the way you like you can add whatever extra pinecone flowers you have not on stems to the base of the bucket for a beautiful arrangement and now you have a beautiful bouquet made out of pinecone flowers.


Today, I will begin with a line, a line that has the capacity to define sovereignty's, to trace territories. This line, when read as a border, also divides. At the border's edges, collections of shelters become a visible artifact that necessitates scales of intervention in which the state often transposes so called solutions. The line, when repeated, when manufactured, establishes a grid in which the same conditions are intensified. No longer porous or rational, the grid conspires. Temporalities coalesce. Among the new temporary camps of Dunkirk, France, and in northern Iraq, where people are often forcibly taken, the grid has become an instrument of control, and invisibility remains. Recent UN estimates posit that over 65 million individuals today are refugees or internally displaced throughout the world. We have been witness to the crossing of borders in which the perils of multiple landscapes mask what happens next. For some, indefinite detention on offshore islands, for others, disappearance. And more often, entrance into provisional structures and possibly camps that are either self-made or NGO-sponsored into carceral grids that belie histories and radicalize inequality. The making of provisional shelter at these margins, like the boat, is considered fragile and indeterminate. These questions affect the need to radically interrogate the systems that produce the camp in the city and the city in the camp. Can architects and designers offer an ethics of space? More critically, how does the use of the grid manifest a series of internal and external borders that exacts the same divisions which contributed to the disasters, both political, social, and environmental, from which thousands still attempt to escape today? This year, 2016, marks 25 years of the largest refugee camp in the world, Dadaab in Northern Kenya, with a growing population of 300,000, in which the average length of stay for an individual is now 17 years. While the state disavows its existence, having erased it from Google Earth for a time, Dadaab, like so many others, is a proto city. Perhaps the most accessible, at least visually, Alsatari in Jordan, with its 12 primary districts, is also expanding into new sub-camps, while internal market economies emerge to compete with the forced assembly of often conflicting cultures. What are the alternatives? I do not use or propose the word solution in this case. The paradigm that transgresses the grid, even when embedded in an abandoned luxury hotel on the periphery of cities, or self-assembled in the desert over 40 years, assumes that individuals participate in the making of the city, that urban settlement is not imposed from without. Even when enmeshed in a dense urban context such as the multiple camps of Lebanon, in which over a million individuals reside, the borders between city and camp have been diminished. In their place, communication networks and infrastructure of potential transgress the urban forms and often the boundaries that were first used to disassemble identities. The refugee camp is a shadow city. To turn away is to disavow ourselves as occupying analogous spaces. If we begin to define the camp as a city and the refugee not as fixed or other, moving beyond the binaries, we have the potential to deploy many, if not all of the strategies around which the discussions of this conference center for better or worse. Yet as long as the grid with its lines of violence and violent lines continues to persist, camps and cities alike will continue to collapse around us. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I should of course refer to this not stimulation but an important reminder of realities. We should stick to this theme of refuge for five minutes. I think then we can open up again to the much broader themes that have emerged. And I'd like to really invite thoughts from anyone around the table. Joe. Thank you, Sean, for a wonderful presentation. The thing that I was thinking of as you were talking about the grid is that one of the most infamous symbols of apartheid racism was the grid of the township houses of Soweto.  But since 1994 when the country was liberated, people were given ownership of their properties, businesses were allowed to be established in Soweto. And I believe recently Soweto scored its first million-rand house sale. And it's a very nice place to live in today. I'm not saying that it's the best place to live in in Johannesburg. So the question really for me has to do with the idea that I don't really think it matters too much about that structure that you place on the ground. It's rather the relationship that people have with it and the freedoms that they can exercise in terms of what they can do with that, that leads to good, healthy urban environments. Thank you. I completely agree. I think, however, that the images that we see today and the structuring of the camp, this dependence on the grid as both rational and as defining the space of what makes home is quite problematic. Because within the camp, what we're seeing, I feel at least, and what I've seen on the ground myself, is that those small-scale interventions as you with, the augmentation of value isn't allowed. It doesn't exist. And when it does, it becomes again a kind of bordering between, within the camps. And it perpetuates these cycles of difference and rather than change and rather than kind of a broadening of what it means to be human. Sean, I had a question on your presentation. Clearly, this seems to be a process for the refugee that almost dehumanizes or perhaps robs them of the makings of domesticity, which would give a certain sense of security, identity, and all of those things. However, this is a transient phase, and I hate to sound cruel about that, but nevertheless, we survive through a particular period hoping for something beyond that. Have you found in your investigations of these settlements a certain conception of home itself, evolving for the people who live in these camps? Have you discovered that? I think it's a great question because what we see in the media, what we see in various publications, not only by architects but by people who are invested in the betterment of these millions of individuals, is we see the exterior. And I am also complicit in this today. We don't really consider the interior lives of individuals. And it's come to my thinking that when we construct or when we imagine ourselves constantly in transit, constantly subject to temporalities of which we have no control necessarily, that the notion of home is not only diminished but also it disappears. Home isn't constituted by what we own and what we possess. Yet home, in the case of a refugee camp, often is reduced to those very simple things. And so when multiple organizations and multiple architects and designers around the world are, in a sense, investing in the exterior and not the interior lives of these individuals, we're doing a disservice to these people.


POSITIVE DIFFERENCES THAT WERE MADE IN THE COMMUNITY AND THIS YEAR'S UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN SUCCESS CALLED FOR A CELEBRATION. TONIGHT AT THE BIMIGI TOWN AND COUNTRY CLUB, THE UNITED WAY OF THE BIMIGI AREA HELD ITS ANNUAL APPRECIATION DINNER, FOR REPRESENTATIVES THANKED ALL THOSE WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE 2016 FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN. THE UNITED WAY OF BIMIGI RAISED OVER 400 THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND ALREADY THE VISION AND GOALS FOR 2017 ARE BEGINNING TO TAKE SHAPE. Well, I'm hoping we can grow. I have some new ideas for events, and hopeful that other businesses in town will want to start a workplace campaign and support the United Way that way. The United Way of Bemidji will kick off its 2017 campaign later this year. If you've enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland Public Television.


Hi everyone, my name is Dr. Laura Portales and I'm going to be guiding you through our course Banaging People and specifically here we're going to talk about Unit 2. So let's get started. Our course unit structure as you can see is divided into 8 units and for our purposes of this video we will be addressing Unit 2 on motivation. As you probably already know it's always important to review the learning objectives for any unit that you're working on. This is because all of the content in the unit but also the practice exam and the final exam questions are tied to these learning objectives. So let's take a look at the learning objectives for Unit 2. The first is apply theories of motivation to inspire and motivate individual employees and groups in a variety of work situations to achieve high performance within organizations. We'll also be looking at use a system that includes performance appraisals and feedback as tools for employee development and to improve job performance. And finally we'll look at recommend incentives and rewards to inspire high performance in teams. Now let's take a look at our list of topics for this unit. The slide here lists the vocabulary that we will be discussing throughout this video and also words that you should know and be comfortable with to get yourself ready for the practice exam. Our list of topics for Unit 2 include a discussion of motivation theories. We're always also going to talk a little bit about performance appraisals and we'll also address some of the possible incentives and rewards you can provide to people to help motivate them at work. The first part of this unit ultimately addresses some of the theories of motivation and we have a few general concepts that I want you to consider as you think about what you've learned in this unit. The first is the idea of a needs-based theory and a needs-based motivation theory really focuses on the things that people so basic human needs and how we as leaders and as managers can help them meet those needs. It's important to remember that sometimes those needs might be physiological needs like food and shelter but also there are a lot of intrinsic needs that we have as well so that's things like sense of accomplishment and fulfillment of tasks. We'll also be looking at some of the cognitive-oriented theories that ultimately tell that people have a need for equitable compensation. So there are a couple of theories based and we'll take a look at those here in a little bit. Behavior-oriented theories ultimately focus on how people act in particular situations and how we can get them to act in the way that we want them to and sometimes this is also called reinforcement theories. Finally job-oriented theories refer to the idea that there are things that we can do as leaders and as managers to help individuals meet their goals and meet their needs based on how we design the job, the mix of skills that they have and how we can develop their skills in order to help make them a better employee. So here I'd like us to dig in a little bit deeper and talk about some of the needs-based theories that we mentioned in the last slide. So here we have two examples of need-based theories. The first is the ERG theory and the second is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. And if you recall, these theories ultimately focus on how can we as managers and people that lead individuals, how can we ultimately help them meet all of the needs that they have. So the ERG theory says that there are three main needs and those needs include existence needs, relatedness needs and also growth needs. So existence needs are those basic physiological needs like food, water, shelter, whereas relatedness needs refers to the social needs that we have, a sense of belonging, whereas growth needs refers to the type of need we have to continually develop ourselves and also to enhance our skills. So Maslow is very similar and actually the ERG theory is based off of this Maslow theory which says that there are these levels within the hierarchy. And the difference between the two theories is that Maslow said people need to have one need met before they can move up that hierarchy. Other later theories about needs and motivation ended up saying that you don't need to have one before you meet the next, that at any given point in time we're working on trying to meet all of these needs. So Maslow looks at needs in a hierarchy, physiological needs, which we've already talked about, us safety needs, belonging or love needs, esteem needs and self-actualization would be similar to the ERG theory in terms of growth needs. So when we look at these two theories we understand that as a leader and as a manager there are a lot of things that we could do to try to meet each of these. So for example we might meet existence needs by providing a reasonable salary and we may meet safety needs by providing benefits as well, healthcare benefits and so forth. As a manager we may try to meet relatedness needs by ensuring that people are working within teams and they have a lot of availability and time to be able to interact with other people within their organization. And finally growth needs, we can motivate people based on that by tuition reimbursement programs or ensuring that they're continually developing their skills to a higher level. So the idea here and what I'd really like you to take away from the idea of needs-based theories is that we don't as managers want to focus on one area, we want to try to focus on several areas of human needs to focus on in order to motivate people. For example if we only focus on physiological needs and provide a high salary, well then we're leaving out a lot of other needs that people still have despite a high salary. So that's our discussion on needs-based theories. Let's take a look at our next concept now. Now let's take a look at some cognitive oriented theories. There are two main ones we can discuss here, the expectancy theory and the equity theory. Expected expectancy theory is located here in this figure and you can see that expectancy refers to the amount of effort based on our performance which then is based on rewards. So in other words the amount of effort we put in, the amount of performance we can expect are based then on the rewards that we expect to get from it. So let's say for example you put in a lot of effort at work but everybody at work receives the exact same pay raise every year. Well this doesn't really meet this theory in that if you put in a lot of extra work you should be rewarded more handsomely than someone that didn't. So as managers we want to make sure that we think about the expectancy theory and that we are providing the appropriate and right amount of rewards based on the amount of effort that each individual on our team is putting in. The equity theory is another cognitive oriented theory and is focused on comparison of others. So if we think about we put in a lot of work but someone else calls in sick a lot or doesn't put in the same amount of effort we would be really disappointed to find out that they are getting paid more than us. So when we think of these cognitive oriented theories we really want to think about the amount of effort employees are putting in and how they're being rewarded for that but we also want to do that in terms of fairness compared to others within our organization. One of the behavior oriented theories that you learned about in this unit is called the reinforcement theory and it says that there are several things that we can do as managers to try to get the behavior that we want from our employees. So we can provide positive reinforcement we can provide negative reinforcement we can provide punishment and also we can provide something that's called extinction and distinction refers to if an employee has some kind of negative behavior essentially we just ignore that behavior hoping that that behavior goes away and they don't receive their positive consequences therefore the hope is that they'll change their behavior. When we look this there aren't necessarily there isn't necessarily one way that's better than others but from a general perspective we want to try to use positive reinforcement as much as possible and avoid negative reinforcement and punishment. Research has shown that positive reinforcement definitely is a better way to get people to do what we need them to do and punishment and negative reinforce can tend to demotivate people. So when we look at this theory there may be sometimes where we do need to have punishment or we need to have negative reinforcement especially if it's in an emergency situation like a report is due and someone does something all wrong but for the most part we want to try to use positive reinforcement in order to get the desired results or the desired behavior that we want our employees to meet. Job-oriented based theories are those theories that focus on the idea that people want to contribute to their organization they want to do a good job within their positions so if we assume this to be true there are certain things that we can do to help people achieve this and achieve growth within our organizations so we can do employee development we could provide tuition reimbursement we might consider training and other types of seminars and things that allow people to grow and ultimately get better in their jobs. We can also change job design we can look at enlarging jobs and tasks for example putting someone on a specific project that's outside of their regular duties in order to help meet the needs that are really ultimately come down to us wanting growth and development as employees and as managers we want that for our employees as well. Now we're moving from motivation theories and talking a little bit about performance appraisals and a performance appraisal is ultimately a formal review of an employee's performance and there's a lot of different methods we can use to someone's performance but I think the key point here that I'd like you to keep in mind is that performance appraisals are a formalized process but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be giving feedback throughout the year most of the time performance appraisals will happen about once a year and in terms of that it's a chance for you to sit down with your employee and discuss performance throughout the entire year but if someone's not meeting expectations they should know right away and not wait until their performance review to find out that they're not doing something correctly. As a manager this is good for you because then you'll get better performance throughout the year so we just want to think performance appraisals ultimately is a formalized process in order to give feedback but every good manager will give continual feedback as they go along throughout the year. Oftentimes we find that performance appraisals are tied to pay raises promotions and that thing so they're important from from that perspective as well. When we look at performance appraisals usually the company that we work for will have a method that they prefer to use but it's good for you as a manager to have an idea of some of the general types of performance appraisals like the graphic rating scale checklist scale and so forth that you read about within the unit. When we look at performance appraisals we also want to consider some of the errors that can happen within performance so the first one is the halo effect and this is when we really like an employee we think they do a great job so we end up right rating them a lot higher than ultimately what they've earned or what they deserve because overall we like them as a person so we definitely want to watch for a halo effect within our employees. When we look at reliability we want to make sure that the tool we use is reliable time after time in terms of us being able to get the same rating every single time we rate. When we look at fidelity we want to look at the fact that the tool that we use is valid and similar to reliability that every time we use it we're going to end up getting a similar result. Acceptability is important too because this relates to the employee and how acceptable the tool is to them as a method to be rated. If the employee doesn't really accept the rating method then it becomes a lot less valuable as a tool to help develop your employees and finally we want to make sure that the tool is specific so we want to relate it to specific jobs within our organization because many can be so very very different we want it to be specific to the job duties that ultimately that person is responsible. Let's take a look now at incentives and rewards so when we think about a reward system we think about the first step which is employees investing a variety of things in order to do their job well so those things can be the fact that the employees investing time they have skills that they bring to the table and they have knowledge that is beneficial to your organization so we can look at that but then we look at the organization itself and the organization wants to attract people that have certain skillset and certain abilities so we have to come up with a rewards or incentive system to ultimately meet that goal which is attracting and retaining people. When we look at retaining people we look at we don't want people to leave our organization once we've hired them so we want to keep the incentives and the rewards in a way that as someone goes along throughout their career with our organization that they're motivated to not only be hired to begin with but to stay within our organization. We also want to think about the fact that the organization invests has an investment in this too just like the employee so they're investing in the employee the paycheck they're paying the employee benefits status and recognition social opportunity but also job opportunities such as a promotion within the organization. So then we can look at this from the employee's perspective in that they want interesting work so everyone wants work that they enjoy and they want to be paid fairly. So when we look at this as a whole and we look at developing a system of incentives and rewards we want to heavily consider this kind of exchange that happened between between us as the organization and the employees and it is possible to meet all of these needs we just as managers want to make sure that we have a very set process and very developed way in order to offer the incentives and rewards that we have. So let's take a little bit deeper look at that. When we look at incentives and rewards there are two main types of rewards intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Extrinsic rewards are those rewards that we provide to an employee for doing a good job so that could be pay that could be benefits that could be paid time off that could be promotions bonuses anything along those lines and these of course are important as part of the way that we want to motivate and incentivize our employees. However there are intrinsic rewards too that while we don't have a lot of control of them as a manager we definitely want to consider them. So intrinsic rewards are think of them more as feelings so it's the feeling of a job well done it's the feeling of satisfaction the feeling that you're contributing to something that's bigger than yourself. So when we look at intrinsic rewards we want to try to design jobs and make sure that we're hiring people with the right skills so that they can achieve these intrinsic rewards. So when we have extrinsic rewards that we're providing and we're hiring the right people with the right set of skills to be motivated intrinsically we have a winning combination. As we're considering incentives and rewards we want to think about some methods that we may use that can help us achieve pay fairness within our organization and that's related back to the theories that we talked about a little bit earlier in this video. So many organizations will have a system that is called pay grade levels and this is where everyone earns essentially the same salary based on the pay grade that they're within and then further the pay grades are established by things like job to levels of levels or years of experience and so forth. So we have a pay grade that may be between a one dollar amount and another dollar amount and then once someone is at say five years of service then they get to move up into the next pay grade or they get promoted and maybe so the advantage to this type of system allows it allows us to ensure that we're paying people fairly but one of the disadvantages is that it may not be as much of an incentive for people to take a lot of initiative within your organization simply because they know that their their pay grade isn't going to change just because they take on an extra project example but having said that that also speaks quite a bit to the idea that it's more than just about pay. So for using a pay grade type that's that's great at least there's fairness there but we want to try to do other things to develop our employees and help them try to meet those intrinsic rewards as well. Some companies use what's called the going rate model and the going rate model looks at research that's done on similar industries different industries within the country that the business is operating and that's how they set up their pay system is essentially the going rate in the United States some organizations will even pay differently for the same type of job if it's in a big city versus a more rural town where it's less expensive to live. So as you can imagine there are disadvantages to this method as well and that make things somewhat unfair but it does give a lot more leverage for the employee excuse me for the management to ultimately pay for for their employee. This now concludes our video review on unit two a couple of things to think about we're going to tie back what you've learned to the learning objectives that we discussed at the beginning of the video which include applying theories of motivation and within that you learn job oriented theories behavior oriented theories cognition oriented theories and needs or oriented theories. We also talked about system that includes performance appraisals and feedback which can be great tools for employee development and we also addressed how we can recommend incentives and rewards to try to get the best performance from our team. Let's take a look now at what's next to prepare you for the practice exam. I definitely recommend that you do another review of the material maybe especially some of the material that you had some challenges with. Once you review that material you should be all set to take the practice exam and I wish you the best of luck.


So, one of the big retorts the conservatives have towards liberals is, problems with liberals is they want equality of outcome and we all know that's bad and that's evil. We though on the right, the conservatives, we want equality of opportunity. That's what this country is really about, is equality of opportunity. I reject that completely. There is no such thing as equality of opportunity. It's a myth, it's a perversion and it's an excuse for massive rights violation. What does equality of opportunity mean? Did I have the same opportunity as Michael Jordan has to play basketball? No, I mean I was born with certain genes, he was born with certain genes. He practiced when he was a kid, I didn't practice when I was a kid. He's tall, I'm short, I mean there are a thousand ways in which we're never going to be equal. Not an outcome, not an opportunity, it's meaningless. We all equally smarter, we all equally ambitious, so do we have the same educational background? Should we try to give everybody the same educational background? Is it possible to give everybody the same background? No, it's not. So we should get away from these so-called platonic ideals. They're not ideal, they're actually vices. These are bad things. The idea of equality of outcome or equality of opportunity are bad because how do we get there? Right? Let's say I'm born to a wealthy family and I have all the privileges and I go to top schools. How are we going to make everybody else equal to me in terms of the opportunities? I know people on Wall Street, I know people at law firms and I want to be a financier and I've got all the connections. Some kid grew up in the Midwest or in South LA, has no money, doesn't know anybody. How are we going to equate the two of us? Can we give him the money? Well the only way to give him the money is to take money from me and give it to him. By what right? That's wrong. Okay, what about my contacts? Well, how are we going to give him contacts? We can't give him contacts so we can take mine away. So we can say you can't use your contacts anymore. There's a law against using contacts. There's just no way to do this. This is silly. There's no such thing as equality of opportunity. The only way to achieve anything approaching it is to violate everybody's rights, lower us all to the lowest common denominator. And it's the same outcome, it was equality of outcome. So what equality do we believe in? What did equality that the Frani Fathers mean when they said we're all born equal? What they meant was that we are all born with potential, we're all human beings and we all have the same rights. Not the same outcomes, not the same opportunities, but we all have a right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. Whether you're rich or whether you're poor, whatever property you have, you have a right to that property. Whether you're rich or whether you're poor, you have a right to free speech. It doesn't matter if you're an aristocrat, if you're born in South LA or in Orange County or in Alaska, it doesn't matter. You have a right to free speech. You have a right to ideas, to hold those ideas, you have a right to pursue your own life in whatever rational way you think makes the most sense for you. So it's equality of rights. It's equality before the law. And think about the historical context. In Europe at the time, this is in the 18th century. If you're an aristocrat in committed murder or if you were a peasant in committed murder, you would get completely different sentences. The idea was no, before the law, in terms of rights, you're equal. So aristocrat, peasant, you get the same sentence for murder if the conditions are the same. So that's the sense in which we are equal. We're equal in terms of rights. The rich guy doesn't have, shouldn't be allowed to steal from the poor guy. The poor guy shouldn't be allowed to steal from the rich guy. They both have the same rights before the law to protect their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. That's the only sense in which equality means anything. And we need to get away from all these other notions of equality to try to soften the edge, but ultimately are driven by an egalitarian notion and ultimately are driven by a need, a call to sacrifice some people, those who happen for whatever reason to have stuff, to those who don't. Sacrifice is wrong, it's evil, no matter what the outcome is. It's wrong to sacrifice some people for other people. So we're for equality, equality of rights, not opportunities.