So, MAGA Communism, it's a new, niche, pseudo-political ideology that I've seen lately, and I absolutely love it. I think it's one of the greatest things to manifest from the internet in a really long time, not only because it's fun to laugh at, but because I like to see the reaction from other people as they learn about MAGA Communism, and we'll get to what it is in a second here. Hello. So, this was shared by a skeptical spice on Twitter, spreading MAGA Communism over on Truth Social seems to be going well. Okay, you've got to see this reaction here. This is exactly what you wouldn't expect unless you've spoken to Trump supporters, okay? I know Trump supporters. There are MAGA Chuds and my family, aunts and uncles, who are Trump loyalists. If you were to propose Communism to them in any form, MAGA Communism, Fascist Communism, they're not going to take kindly to it. So like for example, I talked about this on Twitter, but if you told my uncle, my MAGA Chud conspiracy theorist uncle about Communism, he would not only call you the Efsler, but then accuse you of being possessed by the devil. That's the reaction that you will elicit when you bring up Communism to these folks. They don't like Communism. They don't know what it is, neither do MAGA Communists, obviously, but they don't know what it is, but they know it's bad, right? So okay, so let's take a look here at how well the proselytizing of MAGA Communism is going over on Truth Social. MAGA is Communism. Check out Infrared Show.  MAGA and Communists have the same goals.   You don't understand Communism at all.   We need MAGA with Communism characteristics. No, we don't. Why not?  I mean, this is what you get. Do they not expect this? I need to make a Truth Social account, by the way. Cheryl, so you're for Communism? Yes ma'am, MAGA Communism.  What did you expect? Did you expect anything different? I swear to God, these folks have never spoken to normal Americans ever. These Nazbol people, people like Jimmy Dore who have been trying to cultivate this red-brown alliance forever. Not that Jimmy Dore is associated with like this MAGA Communism stuff, but we'll talk about that. But like these people who always try to form these red-brown alliances, they don't actually understand what these people's belief systems are. A lot of these people are apolitical, but they're really tried and true like MAGA Kool-Aid drinkers.  You are their enemy. So trying to pitch MAGA Communism, like it's going about as well as you'd expect it, right? It'd be like if I tried to pitch atheist Christianity, where I'm an atheist, but I'm a true atheist because I align with Christians. And on top of that, I go to church every single Sunday and I follow Christ. But I'm an atheist Christian and a true atheist Christian. Like this is the way that they're presenting this.   And this is not going to appeal to anyone unless they have an IQ and like the single digits. But I love it so much. And I hope that this continues to trend on Twitter. I hope that they don't stop talking about this because it's so funny to see these types of reactions. I'm going to ask you again, what Communist country were you in? I want nothing to do with Akami. He is not American Cheryl. Okay, so I mean, that's the response. Now, what exactly is MAGA Communism? Well, as Jason Hinkel is going to explain it, this is what it stands for.  Now, first of all, Communism in and of itself isn't necessarily a list of policy priorities as it is a way to govern society and the world. But apparently it's just this wish list of things that they want. So not all of these are bad to be fair. I support cutting the military budget. Other things, pardon Assange and Snowden. Okay, that's great. Pardon January 6 protesters. No, I don't support that. Subsidizing gyms in every community.  Sure, I think that that's a great way to promote community health. But would that be better than say Medicare for all? No, and Medicare for all is not on this list. Now, this is my favorite part about all of this. This is how self-defeating it is. Arrest George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Bill Gates, Fauci, and all Epstein associates and criminals. If you were to arrest all Epstein associates and criminals, the MAGA movement itself, it implodes because it is a movement that is associated with Donald Trump exclusively. Who is one of Epstein's associates who was on the flight log like multiple times? Donald J. Trump. So do you understand why this is like incoherent and why MAGA and communism, these are deeply incompatible ideologies here? And I love this one like no open borders. Yes, because communists historically have been very, very strong proponents of closed borders. Like if you read Lenin and I'm not a political theorist by any stretch of the imagination, I'm more of a comparative political scientist thinker, right? I look at electoral engineering, so theory has never been my strong suit. But like this shows that like Jason doesn't know the basic tenets of this ideology that he reports to subscribe to, right? So no open borders. Read Lenin's State and Revolution. It talks explicitly about how the state is used as a tool of oppression of the working class. Like they're state abolitionists, right? So to say no open borders, that suggests you want a strong state.  You believe in territorial integrity. When that's, that's misrepresentative of communism in and of itself.  And when it comes to dismantling big pharma, why not just nationalize big pharma? That's what should be done anyway.  I see nationalized big tech, but also dismantled big tech. So you want to nationalize big tech and dismantle big tech.  And to be clear, folks, MAGA communism is just fascism. Functionally, that's what it is. This is not communism. This is, this is just fascism and non-compete released a really lengthy video talking about this. And that was really my first exposure to this. And I thought, holy shit, this is dumb, but I love it. Like it's one of those train wreck situations where you can't help but watch like it's so good.  So he posted this video to his channel. Can MAGA communism unite the left and the right? First of all, no. But what he's going to do is he's going to have a debate between Jason and some other guy. And they're going to talk about the costs and benefits of MAGA communism.  Again, it's such an oxymoron. It's like saying I'm a gay straight. I don't know that the term is a little rough.  And Jason was like, no, I am.  Well, I actually am a communist, but at the end of the day, not buying it. If conservative fascists like OAN hosts can see through your bullshit, everyone knows that this is a grift, right? It's a transparent grift. And it's a bad grift. Jason may be the biggest grifter. Perhaps besides Dave Rubin, like, I don't know. I think he might be worse than Dave Rubin because Dave Rubin as brazen and craven as he is, he at least went from being a liberal who was the liberal guy who from a leftist perspective critiqued the left. That is much more useful for propaganda purposes.  But I'll go ahead and watch some of this. This is really long. It's like 16 minutes. But let's watch some of the debate here. Now, Jackson, there's been a lot of controversy as of late. Oh, Jackson, I've been calling him Jason. Jackson doesn't matter, though. So I want you to tell us what is because no one can really define what it is. And the people who seem to like to talk about it the most won't talk to you directly about it. So I want you to. I mean, what's the implication is we need clarification. It's not a real thing.    It's so that's why people aren't talking to him about this. And nobody takes him seriously. What is Moga communism? Moga communism is an idea that I didn't come up with. Haas of the infrared show who we went out to dinner in LA together. He's a good guy. I remember Haas. I remember Haas. Yeah, so he came up with it. The idea is that a lot of the left in America right now is not aligned with us on the issues that matter most when it comes to defeating big tech, nationalizing big tech, protecting free speech, abolishing the CIA, the FBI, going against the endless wars. Well, maybe if you got out of your right wing bubble, you would see that the left actually has been leading the charge on these issues. But I mean, this is a right wing grifter who is just grifting to MAGA. And this MAGA communism shtick will last for maybe a little bit. He's getting a lot of clicks off of it. But like within a couple of years, he's just going to be a right winger because that's where all the money is. Like if you are somebody like as he admitted only cares about clout exclusively. I did it for the cloud. I do everything for the cloud. You'll never see me do something not for the cloud. That's the only way out. If you're that person, you're not going to be in the leftist sphere for very long, because there's not much clout to be had.  You're not going to get Fox News appearances as a leftist. Ask yourself this question. Why are there no right wingers who try to grift the left? And they identify as right wingers and conservatives, but they use nothing but leftist talking points and pander to the left. Why is that not a thing?  So if you really only care about clout and making money, then it's only natural that you eventually grift to the right, because that's where all the money and opportunity lies. So that's what we're seeing here. This is like the Dave Rubin grift just like put on 10 times speed, right? That's all this is. And it's so transparent, which is why I say this has got to be the biggest grifter. Even more so than Dave Rubin, because at least Dave Rubin was a little bit more subtle for a few years. But this guy, like he was a resistance liberal like, I don't know, a couple years ago. And all of a sudden now he's a pro maga. He was one of those forced to vote people who now isn't championing Medicare for all. It's just, it's truly, yeah, terminally online brain rot. That's what this is right here. This is peak brain rot. These sorts of things going against big pharma, big agriculture, they kind of run in line with the average Democratic Party sentiment. And the working class, which not in its entirety, but I would say in large part makes up the maga movement is aligned with communists on this issue or leftist whatever. But there definitely is a strong line that can be drawn between Marxist and Maga on this very issue or on these very issues. And at the end of the day, I think that what we've seen undoubtedly from the Trump administration in their four years is that it was either consciously or in some cases unconsciously doing the bidding of the deep state. We saw that countless times throughout the Trump administration. So I see it as the goal of this project. So if Trump is doing the bidding of the deep state, why would you want to align with him? Wouldn't that make you a deep state shell? This is supposed to be the definitive explanation of Maga communism. That's what Jimmy Dore asked him, like, what is Maga communism? And this is the guy who didn't necessarily create Maga communism, but popularized it. I think that you can credit him with that.  Like you need a really concise, clear definition if you're going to try to promote a new ideology. But come on, he knows what he's doing here. Of Maga communism to be able to highlight the contradictions between the oligarchical ruling class and the working class movement itself. That is Maga and trying to uproot the liberalism and globalism and neoconservativism that's finding its way within.  God damn. If we did like buzzword bingo, you'd get a bingo within 30 seconds. He's going to be, look, he's going to be great on the right because he will get a lot of appearances because he knows how to play their greatest hits.  No substance though, but a lot of good buzzwords that we'll play with the right wing audience. Maga party politics. So that's the broad goal. It's not an effort to uphold fascism or the duopoly as some of those people may have put it are detractors. But it's been trending on social media for the past week. It won't stop. And a lot of people are talking globalists and brackets. Yeah, that's it's a very suspicious word there. Maga supporters are actually talking about it and they think it's a great idea. So that's pretty much no they don't. They don't. I just showed you they don't.   Maybe I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm going to say it. Fascists don't like commies.  They want to kill commies. So to think that you can align with them is just insane.  So this is basically a lefties outreach to Trump supporters to join on the things the the issues that your your views align. Is that what you're saying? But Jimmy's brain is almost going to be broken from this because Jimmy doesn't really know how to process this information because Jimmy Dore does not know what communism is. So he's trying to like figure out. OK, what are you saying? Because like Jackson didn't give a cohesive definition of communism to begin with. So Jimmy's like, wait, so I'm still confused. And you could see like the cogs turning in his head.   Like this is the dumb one right here. Even Jimmy Dore is very clearly not sold. To it and exposing people like Ron DeSantis who might be courting a right wing populist following through the politics that he's putting forward as governor of Florida. But at the end of the day, someone like Ron DeSantis does not differ at all. Why is Ron DeSantis not part of the MAGA movement? It makes no sense whatsoever. Why is Trump and the MAGA movements specifically something that communists can align with but not Ron DeSantis? Like make that make sense. From the, you know, Rhino Republicans. He is a Rhino Republican when it comes to the most important issues.  Come on. No right wingers are going to support. They're going to laugh you out of the room. Policy and his views on the intelligence community. So being able to highlight those contradictions. Now, what do you say to the criticism? Well, first of all, let me bring in Craig Pasta. Now, what are your feelings about MAGA communism? Well, first off, I want to say that I don't think it's disingenuous. I just think it's completely wrong. You know, I go to a lot of credit where it's due, but is disingenuous. It's very clearly a grift. And if you can't see that, you're very naive. Election integrity events. And right now those are filled with MAGA people out there because they feel they were, you know, so okay, we're in the situation.    I don't know about that.  This is why MAGA communism is a gift. And I really hope that it keeps like trending. I hope that he keeps trying to push this because it is a content gold line. Done wrong in the last election. So that is why I get to speak with a lot of MAGA people. And it's just diametrically opposed to each other. When you go to these events and you. Okay, so to be clear and to be fair to him, if he's actually talking to real Trump supporters, he probably has a more accurate perception of the ways that they think like this motherfucker, like, I don't know much about him, but I know he's in like a privileged community. So like, if you haven't talked to these people, then you can fill in the blanks, right? You can ascribe all of these characteristics to them.  Like it's just a normal factory worker. And sure, that's the case in many instances, but like talk to the true Kool-Aid drinking MAGA chuds. And you will understand why MAGA communism is not going to land with them at all. Like again, talk to my cousin, talk to my uncle.  You want to talk to a real Trump supporter? This motherfucker is as MAGA as it gets.  I swear to God. So like, I just, I beg these people, like Jimmy Dore and Jason, to talk to actual Trump supporters if you want to align with them so much. And you'll learn real quickly how unreasonable so many of them are, not to mention that like you're framing this MAGA movement as a working class movement. And there are many working class people who support Donald Trump. But overall, most Trump supporters are affluent. They have money, January 6th people. It took money to get to the capital. These are small business owners like petite bourgeoisie. So I just, their whole concept of this alliance, MAGA communism is built on a false perception of Trump supporters. Like he at least knows, yeah, they're not going to go for that. And that's common sense. Like you shouldn't need to be told that they're not going to go for that because it's common sense.  Here are a lot of MAGA people, nine times out of 10, their number one enemy is communism. They'll say it all the time. Oh, Marxism, communism, that's the problem. Even more than China, even more than Bill Gates and our good buddy over there, Jeff Bezos or any type of oligarch. This is the thing they fear most. Oh, and I forgot, I think that like on that list, I remember it saying something like a line with China on the tenants of MAGA communism. If you think that conservatives are going to align with China, I don't, I don't even know what to say.  Like I'm losing IQ points talking about it. We're all losing IQ points talking about it, but it's worthwhile because I think that the entertainment value is much more important than our sanity and intelligence. So let's just keep watching. Hey, they feel that Marxism, and I honestly feel that a lot of communists in the United States, people who call themselves communists, they believe they're mostly cappuccino communists. I call them that. I don't disagree. They really understand what communism is, like Jackson does in some of our friends. Okay, okay. And I do disagree with that. He brings up cappuccino communists. And he's like, I think a lot of people who identify as communists don't really know what communism is, unlike Jackson, who definitely knows. You had me until you credited one of the founders or the popular riser of MAGA communism with knowing what communism is. MAGA communism is when we subsidize gyms, but don't guarantee healthcare. Brilliant. You've probably read about theory and angles and all these other people, but they feel that- If you did, then read it again, bitch, because you haven't absorbed the information. It's a complete opposite of what they're trying to achieve. They are capitalists, throwing through. They believe in choice. Exactly. And they believe that Marxism and- Okay, I'm pausing it like every two seconds.    Communism is the exact opposite. So when you are around MAGA people, you'll know right off the bat. You know, I sent a friend a link today saying that I'm going to be on Jimmy Dore with my good friend Jackson Henkel and we're going to be talking about MAGA communism. And they were like, what the heck is that? You know, they never heard about it before. So number one, I don't think it exists at all. Number two, even though we are desperate for some type of unity with the working class, we need to stay away from labels.   Labels only separate us. It's when we- Okay, I've just got to separate here.  It's not very difficult to dismantle this idea of MAGA communism because it's so incoherent. It's so badly defined that it doesn't take much to dismantle it. So what he's saying here, a thousand percenture. And we're going to skip ahead here because like we're five minutes in and I'm pausing it every two seconds. And I don't want this to be like a 45 minute hour long segment. So yeah. Labels and come together on our common goals in the working class and our economic struggles, then we can bring it together. This to me is just something that can be used to weaponize and divide us even more. So even though we are desperate for some form of coalition, I just think this whole thing is just definitely non-existent and it is a way of separating us even further. So Jackson, what do you say to that? Okay, I'm not going to get to- I want to get to Jimmy's thoughts on this more broadly. Russia style communism. We agree on more than we disagree on and maybe people didn't previously see this. So I think it's a beautiful- We agree on more than we disagree on. Motherfucker, if you say you're a communist, it's a non-starter for MAGA people. When you hear people say things like, like when you hear them say, oh Trudeau is communist, right? Yes. Yes. They don't mean he's communist. They mean he's an authoritarian because we were told- That's partially true, to be fair to Jimmy. They do associate communism with authoritarianism. So that's why they use communism as like a synonym for authoritarianism.  He is a neoliberal. He is a capitalist. But they say that because, oh well, he did like this vaccine mandate and that's authoritarian.  Now I don't think that they're like really thinking this through that much, but I do think that there is this association from the right between communism and authoritarianism. So I think that Jimmy is actually correct there. I just, again, I want to point this out.  Is it trending? Been trending for the past week. Yeah. But some of the comments are very, very negative. They're like, what are you talking about? And I'm not saying overall and once again- Overall it's positive. I've seen some of that. Well, first of all, a lot of- Okay, so he's in safe territory, right? Like you go on the Jimmy Dore show, you're going to be safe, right? But he's getting a lot of pushback. Not necessarily from Jimmy Dore, but still you can tell that Jimmy doesn't really buy this. Put it on Getter and let's see if you get the same response that you do on Twitter. And we'll see. Most of the MAGA people are hanging out on Getter. They've already left Twitter. So, you know, we'll see. Okay, so there it is. So that's our definition of MAGA communism. I still don't know what communism is. They say it's Marxism, but I don't think so. I think Marx was just didn't- I mean, again, I'm not- I've read very little, but- You haven't read Lenin, Jimmy? Come on. But correct. So you guys probably have read more than me. So it didn't Marx- All he did was really give a critique of capitalism. He didn't really lay out a new economic system. He just kind of critiqued capitalism so people understood what the F capitalism was, right? Am I wrong? As well as how we should view the world through the scientific lens of dialectical materialism. And I think that beyond anything else has taught us that if we have these common goals, then we should be uniting together on the common goals as a working class rather than fictitious party lines. Okay, I just- somehow you're- Okay, you just completely contradicted what you said. We shouldn't be like working together along fictitious party lines. The MAGA movement is centered around Donald Trump, the former Republican president who's going to run to be the GOP's nominee in 2024. It's explicitly a party identity, like the Republican Party and MAGA. These aren't necessarily synonymous, but they are very closely associated. To be MAGA is to be the de facto quintessential Republican now.  And that's what we're seeing from Jason. Hey, hey, hey, hey! But Jenna The Wage in Was Exposed I Let Her Have Her Way


Hello, everyone, and thanks for introduction. So in this talk, I'm going to talk about cryptonals of LoMC for some special instances. This is the outline of the presentation. First, I introduce LoMC and our motivation and also the previous works. Then I'll present our new technique and after that, I discuss how the purpose method can be utilized to recover the key. And finally, I conclude. So as we know, for most of the applications, standard ciphers like AES are suitable and efficient. But for a range of new applications, these ciphers are suboptimal. Actually, in these applications, nonlinear operations cost much more than linear operations. For example, we can mention sub-applications like multi-party computation, fully homomorphic encryption, zero-knowledge proof like snark and start, and very recently, some quantum-resistant signatures. So the main goal of the primitive which I'll use in this application is to minimize the number of ends and the multiplications. Example of such designs includes LoMC, Clobium, Fleet, MIMC, and very recently, Roster, which was proposed at last crypto. LoMC was proposed as EuroCube 2015. And actually, it creates suitable instances for a wide range of applications. For example, two submissions in the second round of NIST competition for post-quantum cryptography use LoMC as their primitive. The round function is SPN, but a bit tweak. The designers choose to use partial nonlinear layer. It means that the nonlinear layer doesn't apply on the whole state. It only applies on the partial of the state. And also, the Spark size is as small as possible. It's 3-bit Spark, and with an algebraic degree 2. And these choices, of course, can make decipher vulnerable against statistical attacks. So to provide reasonable security against statistical cryptanalysis, designers choose linear layer as binary invertible matrices that are generated independently and also randomly. And at the end of the round, we also have key addition, where round keys are generated by another matrices. The binary matrices are multiplied to the massive key, and then sub-keys are generated. And with respect to the number of rounds, the number of rounds provided by the designers in the work, they study a lot of techniques and different cryptanalysis. And based on the given block size and also elaborate data complexity and number of spaxes per round, where we show by M, they present formulation for the number of rounds. And they show that if we consider this amount of rounds, then the cypher is secure against this kind of cryptanalysis. During the process of the designing of Profitovich and Lowend, propose some update for the formula for competing the number of rounds to be secure against Pumbrang attack. And at year 2016, we had another paper on higher order differential, which led to the second version of the formula for the number of rounds. And in this work, we present new cryptanalysis for some special instances of LUMC, which led to the new formula for the number of rounds. And it's important to note that LUMC version 3 is actually utilized in different schemes. For example, signature scheme picnic or some group signature scheme proposed by Dan Boone and others. They use LUMC, so it's widely used in different applications. Our work is inspired by Provis techniques, so let me remind the basic idea from the previous works rapidly. Meet in the middle cryptanalysis is a well-known cryptanalysis that, at least in the basic scenario, it requires a very limited number of data. And also, actually, it's independent of the inner components. It's somehow it's a structural attack. However, it's not applicable on cypher like LUMC because the key schedule is strong enough and the sub key and round keys are generated based on the whole key. Another attack is differential cryptanalysis. It's a flexible method that can be applied on a variety of cyphers. But designers of LUMC, they provide a lower bound for the active sproxes. And then differential cryptanalysis is not applicable on the cypher. Another idea, which was proposed by Dimitri and Selcuk in 2009 to apply an AES, was the kind of combination of the truncated differential method and meet in the middle of method. In truncated differential, instead of looking just one input pay and output difference, input difference and output difference, we can see the set of input differences and set of output differences. However, they combine these ideas to somehow make you take advantage of the positive properties of both attacks. However, the application of this kind of method is challenging on LUMC because the linear layer of LUMC is very strong. It's a bit oriented matrix. And you cannot find really an efficient truncated differential characteristics for few rounds of the cypher. So what we aim to do in this work is to somehow exploit these well-known techniques to take advantage of positive properties and then overcome the limitations such that it can be applicable on LUMC. So let me first give an overview of the technique, of our technique. We divide the cypher into three parts, namely R1, R2, and R3. And for the first part of the cypher, we aim to find the differential characteristics with input delta in such that this characteristic holds with probability 1. So if we have a deterministic differential characteristic, the idea is that independent of the value of the unknown key, we can predict the difference at the output of the R1 round. Then we ask the ORACL to provide us corresponding cypher takes of the plain-text P and P prime, such that the difference between P and P prime is delta in. For the second and third part of the cypher, instead of looking for a differential or truncated differential characteristic with high probability, we aim to find all of the reachable output differences after R2 rounds. So we compute all of the reachable differences here from delta R1. And we save all of them in a list. And we do the same for the third part from the cypher takes and for the backward direction. And we compute all of the reachable differences from here to here. And in emitting the middle approach, we can compare two sets and find the common values in both sets. And if this value is unique, then it means that we could find the value of the difference in the middle of the cypher, independent of the unknown key. And of course, if it's a unique value, then we can do the same thing for other rounds and obtain all of the internal differences of the cypher. So let's go to the details for the first part to have deterministic differential characteristic. We need to have all of these boxes be passive. So each round has M S boxes. Each S box has three bits. So our R rounds, we have three, multiply M, multiply R filtration. So if we consider the length of the low MCB, then we expect to have 2 to the b minus 3 M R deterministic differential characteristics. So to have deterministic differential characteristics, it's enough to consider R1 as b over 3 M, approximately. For the second and third part of the method, we need to somehow estimate the number of reachable differences. We compute the somehow exactly reachable differences in our paper more precisely. But here, I prefer not to go to the details, but just give an overview. So if we consider only one S box and we fix the input difference, then the output difference of S box of low MC can get at most to the two different values. And if we consider all rounds of the ciphers with the assumption all of the S boxes are active, then each round has M S boxes. So if we consider all rounds, then totally we have M R S boxes. So totally we have 2 to the 2, multiply M, multiply R, different values at most. So the time complexity for computing all of the reachable differences and creating the list is 2 to the 2 M R 2 for the second part and for the third part. And of course, it should be less than 2 to the k because we want to have a return on this faster than excessive search. Another limitation is to avoid run collision. To avoid run collision, the number of rounds in the second and third part should be less than this value. So of course, we cannot manage this inequality because it's a time complexity and we want to have a faster attack than excessive search. But the question is how we can manage this inequality? How we can solve this problem? Because if we have more than one collision in the middle of the cipher, then it's somehow challenging. The idea is simple yet very effective. We move from differential to poly-topic characteristic, which was for the first time proposed by TSN at Eurocrypt 2014. Instead of considering one difference and the propagation of one difference, we consider the differences and a couple of the differences. And similarly, we can also estimate the number of the differences available and reachable in the middle of the cipher. So for one S-box, we have at most one S-box of low MC, we have at most two to the three different values at the output of the S-box. And if we consider R rounds, each round has M S-boxes. So totally, we have M R active S-boxes in the worst case. So at most, we have two to the three multiply M multiply R different values for the differences. And now to avoid any wrong collision is enough to consider the dimension D larger than the C value. So we can simply manage this by actually increasing the dimension of the D differences. So far we have discussed finding and obtaining internal differences over the cipher without computing the key. Now it's important to understand how it affects the security of the cipher. We want to know if we know the internal differences in the middle of the cipher, can we retrieve the key actually efficiently, how we can compute, obtain the key efficiently. So let me remind the well-known definition for S-boxes. We call an S-box delta uniform if for a specific input difference alpha and another specific output difference beta for alpha and beta value bit. The number of X that satisfied in this equation would be less or equal to delta. If, for example, for low MC, low MC S-box is two to the two for uniform. And so in general, if the S-box is two X uniform and if we assume that in the last rounds all of the M S-boxes are active, then we have two to the M X different solutions for a given input differences and output differences of the last rounds. And each of them, each of this solution leads to a specific value for the state before the S-box and after the S-box and each of them can lead to a unique sub key. And of course, if we use more pairs then we can retrieve the last round of the key. But the key point here is that we cannot retrieve the whole sub key at the end of the cipher because the non-linear layer is partial. So to be able to continue this way for other sub keys we need to present this equivalent representation of low MC. So this is the structure of low MC and if you look at the last two operations both of them are linear. So we can simply swap them and consider equivalent sub key instead of original sub key. And again if you look at this key addition and this key addition as the non-linear layer is partial then we can combine this part and this part together like this and then again we consider equivalent sub key for the round before the last round. And of course we can continue this way and finally we have this kind of representation for low MC. So if I can retrieve this value for the last round of the cipher then we can simply retrieve one round and again apply the method to retrieve the sub key for other rounds. These are the results of our attack. For example, if you look at this instance the key length is 256, the number of rounds is 158. The allowable data is 16 and number of S-box is one and block size is 128. And the time complexity of the attack is two to the 165 at most which is notably faster than two to the 256. The key point here is that if in our formulation we have found that if the block size is larger than the key size then it's better to use conventional differential characteristics. It means that the differences with dimension D1 like conventional differential. And when the block size and key size are equal then the dimension two is the best choice and of course when the block size is much smaller than the key size then we can increase the dimension of the D differences. For example, we consider D4 and then we can avoid any round collision in the middle of the cipher. So all of the instances we could attack, they have the same structure, say property, that the number of S-boxes in each round is very limited. For example, one five, one five. So it's only applicable on low data instances and also the allowable data is also very limited. So it's only applicable on low data instances of low MC but it's a very important family class of low MC family of cipher because it's already used in some signature, post quantum signatures and so it's a very important class of low MC. So to conclude, we present, we propose a new presentation, representation for the block cipher with partial non-linear layer. The presentation that I just introduced, it can be applicable on any cipher, SPN cipher with non-linear layer. And we provide a new insight into the security evaluation of low MC and also block cipher with partial non-linear layer. And our results are the best results for some version of low MC that led to a new round for them. Thank you very much. Question, any question? So have you tried these techniques on other partial SPN ciphers? Yeah, so for example, if we consider Zoro, then it's also applicable on Zoro or other ciphers but in compared to other ciphers, other equipments as on Zoro, our results are not better. But the point is that our attack can be applicable on Zoro and independent of the linear layer. So if we change the linear layer, of course differential and linear attack can not be applied or at least it can be challenging to apply on Zoro or similar ciphers, but work is independent of the linear layer and inner properties of the cipher. But yeah, it's not like better than produce well-known attack. Okay, thank you. But naturally it's applicable. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.


Ho ho ho! Merry Christmas to all of you, wherever you may be stuck owing to COVID restrictions. And to liberate my mind, if not my body, I am using a Macedonian wine. Macedonian wines are among the best in the world. And no, I am not a shill. I am not receiving a commission for saying this. And it's not advertising. It's simply a fact. So here we are. Let's pour a glass to this oncoming here. It cannot be worse than the previous two. Today, I'm going to attack men. It's not the first time I'm doing this. I'm an equal opportunity abuser. I have several videos attacking the current modern misconduct of men. Because men are misbehaving, big time. Not that women are not, but men, in a way, have started it 5,000 years ago. So today I'm going to focus on men and what men do to women. I refer you to a series of videos I've made previously about contemporary sexuality. About the way modern women comport themselves, make choices and decisions. The psychological background and social psychological background and so on and so forth. It would be a good introduction to this video. This whole thing, this whole kind of cycle of videos is part and parcel of my new syllabus of youth sexuality. A syllabus that I'm preparing, that I'm writing as we speak. For SEAPS, the Center for International and Advanced Professional Studies, the outreach program of the SEAS Consortium of Universities. Youth sexuality is going to be taught in SEAPS starting in October. And I'm submitting the final draft of the syllabus, for the fifth time, actually on the 27th. So this is the final video in the cycle. And I hope this way I'm going to wrap up the topic and revert to my old abode. Narcissism, psychopathy, borderline and other wonderful manifestations of the human spirit. Okay Shoshanim, let's start with facts. In aggregate, women are now earning more than men. Yes, it's a fact. Women make more money than men. Actually, about two in every five providers are now men, primary breadwinners are now women. So 40% of primary breadwinners are now women. Their men stay at home. They are house husbands or house men. They take care of the kids, they clean the house, they throw the garbage. There's been a reversal in this sense and it's ongoing. Women now are earning more than men because they are way more educated. Anywhere between 60 and 70% of college graduates are actually women. And the best predictor of lifelong income is education. The higher your education, the more money you make throughout your professional life. Women had monopolized certain critical professions, anything from the judiciary to medicine. Teaching, of course. And women today prefer their careers to any men for much longer than before. Women marry much, much later, 32 years of age in the United Kingdom, 28 years of age in the United States. That's something like 10 years, about 10 years later than just 20 years ago. So women are postponing marriage and postponing committed relationships. Actually, marriage is in the minority nowadays. Most women cohabit, if they do engage in a committed relationship, they cohabit in order to maintain the flexibility to exit their relationship and pursue their career. For example, if they have to relocate. About two-fifths of women, around 45%, across the lifespan, remain single for life. They go celibate, or they do casual sex, that's according to Pew Center studies between 2019 and 2021. Women are catching up with men in a variety of other unsavory ways. I'm sorry to say that women are beginning to be equal to men when it comes to infidelity. The rate of adultery, extramarital affairs and cheating generally, betrayal, are now almost equal between men and women. Narcissism is on the rise among women. And today, there's an equal number of people diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder among women as among men. 50-50. Psychopathy is on the rise among women. And if we consider borderline personality disorder to be a form of secondary psychopathy, as is the current cutting edge thinking, then perhaps there are more psychopathic women than men. Promiscuity, of course, is equal among men and women, which is a shocking development.  And finally, antisocial behaviors among women are becoming more and more common and that includes violent crime. So women are becoming more and more like men. Lisa Wade and others point to huge studies, enormous studies over 40 years or 30 to 40,000 people, which demonstrate conclusively that women describe themselves more and more in masculine terms as men also use the same terms to describe themselves. So women are becoming more and more menly. They close the gap with men in terms of self-image, self-description and self-deception. And we end up with unigender, a single gender, a masculine gender in a hyper-masculinized world. Women are empowered in all fields of life, but there's one exception. Sex and interpersonal relationships. Women are empowered in their careers. Women are empowered in their relationships with colleagues, with institutions, with the authorities, you name it.  How come? Why this discrepancy? It's because of men. To attract men and to keep men, women still self-objectify. Actually, they self-objectify much more than their great-grandmothers. Self-objectification started more or less in the 1920s when makeup became very common. Yes, there was no makeup before 1920. Believe it or not, makeup is a modern, a new invention. So women started to self-objectify, to doll up, to become objects of sexual desires, to transition from being sexual to being sexy, to use Paris Hilton's famous adage. So women became sexy rather than sexual. This started in the 1920s, but it had reached a crescendo recently. Women self-objectify like never before. They groom, they titivate themselves. They wear skimpy clothing. They go under the knife. Plastic and cosmetic surgery had absolutely supernovaed.  Even total strangers in hookups or in group sex, in group sex, like three sons, is becoming more and more common as do open relationships. A license to cheat. Sex and intimacy are men's alamo. Remember the alamo. Sex and intimacy are the last tend of men in an ever shrinking enclave of virility and erstwhile dominance. It's a vengeful throwback.  Now some may say this is toxic masculinity. But it is traditional masculinity in large measure. It's become toxic because of the siege mentality of men. Men now exaggerate in caricature, waning chauvinistic machoism as a way to punish apity women for their inexorable ascendance. They want to put women in their place, reduce women to size. And how can men do that? How can you contain a woman? She makes more money than you. She's more educated than you. She's more skilled than you. She goes further in life than you. She's more powerful than you. There's only one way. Humiliate and degrade her sexually. Prostitute her if you can. Abuse her in a relationship verbally, psychologically, financially and otherwise. Trample on her whenever she tries to get close. Convert intimacy into a form of nightmare. Rendle the whole thing surrealistic. And that's precisely what men do on a massive scale. Consequently we have a subculture of refugees from abusive relationships. We have tens of millions of women who had graduated from the school of masculine abuse. And they act exactly as refugees do. They have all the dynamics of refugees, including complex trauma, CPTSD. These women are wary of men. They suspect men. They mistrust men. And many of them hate men, actively. Being sexually and emotionally abusive to women is men's way of restoring their challenge grandiose superiority. Now most of this superiority had been merely imagined. A lot of this so-called superiority had been enforced by muscle power. Men acted as bullies. They tortured women, domestic violence and abuse. They hospitalized a woman who would talk back and argue and challenge. So men used muscle power, raw muscle power, to subjugate women. Now that's not working anymore, because A, it's illegal. Two, it's not self-efficacious in a modern technology-empowered worry. So men had lost their only advantage they ever had, their muscle power. And so now they feel bereft. They feel the underdog. They feel discriminated against. They regard the whole power structure as a leverage of women against them. They say that women use the legal system, for example, to emasculate them and to steal their money. Their heart earned money. And so there's a war, a nascent war between men and women. In divorce courts, in hookups, in dating, so-called dating, dating had become a glorified term for hookups. In bars and pubs and nightclubs, across the world, men are fighting women and women are defending themselves, to a large extent, unsuccessfully. Men are wielding the good, old, reliable double standard.  Men pathologize these women. They say that they are not relationship material and they slut-shame them. The same behavior is judged differently depending on who perpetrates it. Men is judged differently to a woman and men will never give up on the double standard. It's the last remaining weapon. It's a weapon of last resort. They're never going to give up on it. On the very contrary, they're going to enhance the perniciousness and they're going to enhance the all-pervasiveness of the double standard. They're going to render it structural. They're going to make it a part of the sexual script of the future, a part of the gender role of the future. Men are on the retreat. They have a siege mentality, as I said. They're fighting back. They're fighting back and it's red in tooth and claw. The battle is joined and it is bloody and it is gloomy and it is ominous. And so each of the parties, men and women, are using all the tools at their disposal to eviscerate, emasculate the other side. It's a battlefield out there. Love is a battlefield. She was right. And women are reacting, of course, to men's abuse. Women increasingly are going their own way. The same, there's a minority of men who are doing the same. Miktal, men going their own way. There's a smaller minority of men who are very violent and aggressive about it, incense. And so there's a comparable movement of women. It's not a structured movement. It's not an organized movement. You won't find much of it online. But you could easily call it women going their own way. Every year since 2016, a majority of women in the United States had avoided men altogether, not a single encounter. Lesbianism had tripled in the past 20 years. Right now, one of every six women is an avowed and proclaimed lesbian. Other parts of the world are following suit with alacrity. One of the weapons that women have is infidelity. Cheating had absolutely exploded among women. And women justify cheating. They say their needs are not being met. They say they are being abused. They blame men for their decision-making. They blame men for their utterly non-normative and immoral behavior because cheating is immoral. Now men have been doing the same for centuries. Men had been cheating on women and betraying them for centuries. Here the double standard is at play again. Cheating women is one thing, but cheating men is another. Boys, the boys, women are supposed to be saintly and virginal. They're not supposed to cheat. But women have become more and more masculine. So now they cheat. And toxic masculinity is now the norm among women as well as among men. I would say that both women and men are now displaying toxic masculinity coupled with unrestricted sociosexuality. We see an explosion of dark-tribe personalities. Allow me to explain what they just said. Toxic masculinity is a set of behaviors which reinforce each other and reject gender differences and accommodation of the needs of the opposite gender. But toxic masculinity now characterizes both men and women in a unigender world. Toxic masculinity goes hand in hand in some cases, in many cases actually, with something which we call unrestricted sociosexuality. Unrestricted sociosexuality is not a sexual orientation as many of you had written to me. It is not. It is a fancy name, a fancy term for promiscuity simply. So unrestricted sexuality, the tendency to have sex in non-committed relationships and often casual sex, coupled with toxic masculinity, go hand in hand with dark-tribe personalities. In other words, with narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism. This is the combination from hell. It's a triple whammy. Surprisingly though, this unsavory mix, toxic masculinity, promiscuity, dark-tribe personality, this unsavory mix does not always automatically translate into infidelity. If the intimate partner is boundary and committed to the relationship, the risk of infidelity is no higher than average. So why is infidelity excluding? Because people are not committed in their relationships. And why are people not committed in their relationships? Because one, they don't want to commit or to invest.  So why would they commit or invest? You know, you got the milk, why buy the cow? So men have an inbuilt incentive.  Women, on the other hand, do not want to commit because they are invested in their cherished careers and then later on they lack the skills to maintain intimacy and to have meaningful sex with men. And they are also exposed to men's abusive ways as a way to restore the sense of masculinity and virility. So put all of this together, commitment to career, abusing relationships and lack of ability or lack of knowledge, lack of skills on how to have meaningful emotional sex and how to maintain intimacy, and it renders women equally non-committal. So men don't want to commit, women don't want to commit, there's no commitment in relationships. The lack of commitment in intimate relationships nowadays is considered the main reason for infidelity and it is the first time in human history where men actually are more committed than women. Men, for the first time, starting in 2019, men are the ones who want deep, romantic, intimate, long-term relationships and they want these relationships more than women do. Women are the ones who are rejecting men, not the other way around. The first time in human history, both genders are equally invested, women a little more than men, in not having committed relationships. And this of course gives rise to infidelity.  It's like having dinner with someone. So, because sex doesn't matter, because of this permissive attitude to sex, cheating is perceived, infidelity is perceived as nothing special, nothing meaningful. And so why make a fuss about it? Why make a big deal about it? It happens, you know, I was drunk, this, that, and so I cheated on you, but it's just an incident. Don't take it so badly, you know? So, infidelity is more and more accepted socially and more and more accepted individually within relationships, plus between you and me. Infidelity is great because it allows the partners to not invest in the relationship, to not commit in the relationship, and to blame the other. I am not committed to the relationship, I'm not investing in the relationship, and I'm being abusive to you because you had cheated on me. Cheating is a great way to legitimize abuse within relationships. Both parties engage rampantly, celebrate this newfound excuses and freedom to abuse each other. The problem is that few people bearing this psychological profile are boundary, and even fewer people with this psychological profile are able to commit within relationships. They have what we call insecure attachment styles. So, when we have someone with toxic masculinity which today characterizes men and women, and someone who engages in substance abuse, and someone who is socially sexually permissible and restricted, in other words, promiscuous, and finally someone who is a bit psychopathic, a bit narcissistic, a bit Machiavellian, when we have this time bomb put together, it bodes ill for the capacity to have long-term relationships or for the longevity once they are embarked upon. And so, now these things are so, these parameters, these dimensions, these traits or characteristics are so widespread that we could easily say that the majority of population, one way or another, has some of them, and a sizable minority has all of them. So, these kind of people, they tend to bail out, they tend to cheat with the first sign of serious difficulties in their relationship. And accustomed to meaningless and unemotional sex, these people hold a more permissive and dismissive view of extramarital casual sexual encounters. They dismiss them. Consequently, the phenomenon of serial cheating is substantially on the rise. People don't cheat once anymore. They make it a life habit. I can't emphasize enough how important it is to get fully informed regarding the relationship and sexual histories of a potential intimate partner. Whenever you come across someone and you consider the possibility of having a relationship with them, ask, ask and ask again. Yes, interrogate them.  Why? Because past misbehavior is an infallible predictor of future misbehavior, period. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. It's nonsense. That's precisely why in psychology we studied people's past. The only way to get to know people is to get really, really acquainted to the minutest details with their past, or you would be in for some very nasty surprises. So this is where we stand. Women are on the ascendance. Men are reacting by abusing them and degrading them sexually. The incidence of infidelity is increasing as does the incidence of celibacy.  More and more women are becoming lesbian. I think same sex among men is also increasing, although more stealthily, less reported or into stigma and so on. And there is a veritable supernova, not of empathy, not a super empath or supernova empath. Not this nonsense, but there is a veritable supernova in a variety of antisocial, narcissistic, psychopathic behaviors. In toxic masculinity, in promiscuity, unrestricted social sexuality, and in dark triad and dark tetrad personalities. This is the perfect storm. Men have been abusing women for millennia and killing women for millennia. Men had also been protecting women for millennia and facilitating women's survival for millennia. Women, on the other hand, are taking matters into their own hands now as they should, and so they should. Women are becoming independent, autonomous, self-efficacious and agentic. Good for them. But in this process, women had adopted male role models. Wrong male role models. Narcissists and psychopaths. Everyone is becoming more narcissistic and more psychopathic. We are living in a society where men and women are becoming indistinguishable except through their genitalia. And this is extremely bad news for the human species.


A warm welcome to the 19th session in the fourth module of signals and systems. We have now gained some maturity in the Laplace transform and calculating the inverse Laplace transform at least for the context of rational Laplace transforms and it is rational Laplace transforms that we shall encounter most frequently. So, we are now well set to deal with an example to understand what we have been learning all this while and for that example we will take the very same system with which we began our discussion of signals and systems. The very simple RC circuit resistive capacitive circuit and we would find its unit step response using the Laplace transform you know it is good to do the same thing in different ways. So, you see the connection and of course, then to extend it to other context. So, let us do the same thing to the RC circuit that we did earlier on in module 1, but now use the Laplace transform to affirm our understanding. So, here we go we take this circuit. Now, let us write down how each of these elements behaves. So, there is a resistance R and a capacitance of value C and of course, if you take the individual resistance of value R look at the voltage across it and the current in it. Then we have VRT divided by IRT is equal to R where upon VRT is equal to IRT times R and now we can take the Laplace transform on both sides. So, therefore, if we take a ratio of the Laplace transform of voltage and current across the resistance we get just R it is the same as the resistance. And this quantity this R is now also the ratio of the Laplace transforms of the voltage to the current just as it is the ratio of the voltage to the current and this is called the Laplace domain impedance of the resistance. In a similar manner we can take the capacitance and analyze it on the side. So, for the capacitance I would have again a voltage and a current associated with it. So, VCT and a current ICT flowing through it where upon ICT is equal to C times the derivative of VCT and we can take the Laplace transform on both sides giving us the Laplace transform of the current is CS. Now remember when you take a derivative you are multiplying the Laplace transform by S. So, therefore, VCS by ICS is 1 by CS and this now becomes the Laplace domain impedance of the capacitance. You see we study circuits in high school or in pre-college and largely we begin with circuits which have DC excitations, constant voltages and resistances. So, what is often easy to do and convenient to do is to use those principles of circuits carried to other elements as well. So, if I have inductances and capacitances I would look I would like to use the same techniques that I have for resistances and voltages direct voltages to analyze the circuit. And therefore, this idea of generalizing the concept of resistance to impedance Laplace domain impedance is very useful in analyzing more general circuits than just resistive. In fact, this Laplace domain impedance together with the Laplace transform of the input and the output can help you handle a much wider class of circuit situations where you have resistances, inductances, capacitances and sources that could be sinusoidal starting from a point or exponential or a step or even ramp. Let us now proceed to an example. Let us now draw the circuit again and let us write down the input-output relationship as we did earlier. So, I have input voltage V in T and the output voltage across the capacitor V out T. And I know the relation between V in T and V out T. We have done that many times before. So, there we go. We say V in T is a sum of two voltages. It is the voltage across the resistance which is R times the current in the resistance. The current in the resistance is the same as the current in the capacitance which is C times dV out T dT. And then you have V out T being added to it. So, this gives us the simple relationship between the input and the output. And now we can take the Laplace transform on both sides. To give V in S, the Laplace transform of the input is R C S times V out S plus V out S. Essentially, here this is the Laplace transform of the input and this is the Laplace transform of the output. And we have a system here. The system is the R C circuit. And we can now write down the ratio V out S by V in S which is 1 by 1 plus R C S. Let us put R C equal to the time constant tau. So, we get 1 by 1 plus tau S. This is the system function of this system. A simple example of system function. And now, of course, we can find the impulse response very easily. We can find the impulse response by inverting the Laplace transform. Now, of course, here it is very easy to invert because you know which region of convergence to choose. You see, when you have a rational Laplace transform, all that you have to remember is that the poles of the Laplace transform cannot be a part of the region of convergence. So, here in this case, we have only one pole. So, in the S plane, the pole is at minus 1 by tau on the negative real axis. And therefore, there are only two possible regions of convergence. You see, as I was saying in the Laplace transform, if you have a rational Laplace transform, the poles need to be excluded from the regions of convergence. And therefore, you can have two possible regions of convergence here. Let us mark them. Draw a vertical line through this pole. And the right shaded region is one of the regions of convergence. I will mark that here. And the green left shaded region is the other possible region of convergence. Now, this would give us the right-sided impulse response. And this would give us the other one, would give us the left-sided impulse response. But we have to choose the right-sided impulse response. This has to be chosen on account of causality. You will remember that if you want the system to be causal, its impulse response needs to be 0 for all negative t. And that is only possible if the signal is right-sided. So, we have a very clear choice to make here. Now, having chosen that, let us give a unit step input to the system. So, we have this. This is the system function here. We have made this choice. This is the ROC now. And let us give it a unit step input. That means, we are giving it U t as the input. And the Laplace transform of U t is very simple. Now, of course, here we need to worry about the region of convergence. And the region of convergence is going to be real part of S greater than 0. And for real part of S greater than 0, this becomes essentially 1 by S. So, this is the region of convergence. And this is the expression of the Laplace transform. And if we give this input, that means, if we make V in S equal to 1 by S, then V out S is going to be V in S times the system function. And that is 1 by S times the system function. And I can make a partial fraction expansion of this. To make a partial fraction expansion, it is easier for us to write it in the form that we know the standard form. So, divide numerator and denominator by tau. 1 by tau into 1 divided by S into S plus 1 by tau. And this can be expanded as something divided by S plus something divided by 1 or something divided by S plus 1 by tau. And to get this, we multiply by S and put S equal to 0, whereupon we would have 1. And to get this, we multiply by 1 or rather just S plus 1 by tau and put it equal to 0. And that gives you minus 1. And you can of course verify that this indeed the right hand side indeed sums to the left hand side. That is not very difficult to do. So, one can check. It is always a good idea to check your partial fraction decomposition. What I mean by check is here, for example, let us see. You see, I can simply aggregate this. This can be aggregated. This is S into S plus 1 by tau, S plus 1 by tau minus S. And that is indeed equal to the left hand side. So, checked. It is always a good idea to do that if you are not sure. So, now we have this partial fraction expansion and we need to recognize the regions of convergence. What regions of convergence do we have to associate? So, essentially V out S now is 1 by S minus 1 by S plus 1 by tau. And this came with the ROC, real part of S greater than 0. This came with the ROC, real part of S is greater than minus 1 by tau. And the only way in which we can reconcile these ROCs is to take their intersection. The intersection which is real part of S greater than 0 must be in the ROC. And we can use that to invert this. And when we use that to invert, we get V out t, very simple.  Or 1 minus e raised to the power minus t by tau times U t, which is indeed the step response that we had got much earlier. Simple and elegant. Laplace transform gives you a simple neat algebraic way using algebra first, just plain addition, multiplication and finally, the experience of inverting a rational Laplace transform. Now, it would be interesting to see what happens if you gave the same circuit not a unit step, but a unit ramp. So, let me explain what I mean by that. Suppose we gave this a unit ramp input now, essentially an input that looks like this ever increasing. You will notice that the unit ramp is the running integral of the unit step. So, it is equal to the integral from minus infinity to t U lambda d lambda. And that amounts to multiplying the Laplace transform by 1 by S. So, its Laplace transform is 1 by S into 1 by S, which is 1 by S squared. And now, we could ask what happens at the output. Now, you can solve this by two ways. One approach is to make a partial fraction expansion as usual. The second approach is to invoke the property of the linear shift invariant system. This operation of taking a running integral is itself a linear shift invariant system. So, if you give it an input x of t and produce the output y of t. And if y of t is the integral from minus infinity to t x lambda d lambda, the system is linear shift invariant. And the system function is 1 by S. Now, what you have done is to take the input unit step. You have given it to a running integrator. Let us call it S i. Let us call the system S i. You have given it to S i. And you have given the output of this to the R C circuit. That is what you have done. Now, this is a cascade of two LSI systems. We can interchange the order. And therefore, you could put S i after the R C circuit, which means you could have the situation as follows. You could give a unit step input, find the output to the R C circuit, which we already know. And this could be given to the running integrator. Now, the exercise for you to do, with which we shall conclude this session is verify that both approaches give the same answer. And with that, you would enhance and fortify your understanding of the Laplace transform. We shall see more in the next session. Thank you.


Do you ever wonder why a relationship that started between a couple who genuinely loved each other from the start suddenly comes to a halt without an apparent reason why it should? Before a relationship hits the rock, a lot of things would have been going wrong. Trying to make a lasting romance with your soulmate is a beautiful thing to work toward. But there are telltale signs why most relationships do not work. While the last thing you and your spouse want to consider is breaking up, the sad thing is, breakups happen too often. The American Psychological Association revealed data that proved that as many as 50% of marriages in the United States and in divorce, do you want a lasting relationship? What are the things to look out for if you want your relationship to survive? But how can you tell whether your relationship will survive? Well, there are surefire predictive signs like your bedroom habits, the way you argue, and how often you communicate. Even the way you carry your day-to-day conversation can shed light on your relationship's longevity. Watch this video to discover some of the most common reasons why relationships fall apart. 1. You would draw it during arguments In his 2015 research, published in the journal Psychological Assessment, Keith Sanford, PhD, a psychology professor at Baylor University, found that partners who admitted that they often would draw it during arguments reported being unhappier and more apathetic about the relationship overall. Withdrawal is the most problematic for relationships, Sanford said in the statement, It's a defense tactic that people use when they feel they are being attacked, and there is a direct association between withdrawal and lower satisfaction overall with the relationship. 2. You are not on the same page When Virgil wrote that love conquers all, he had clearly never been in a serious relationship. Yes, love can overcome many things, but if there's one thing that it cannot overcome, it is not being on the same page. You and your partner need to be clear about fundamental decisions like where to live, and if to have kids, and how to save and spend money. Otherwise, the relationship will fall apart. According to Leslie Doors, a certified relationship coach in Kerry, North Carolina, 67% of disagreements in a relationship never get resolved, and they don't need to, but the other 33% if not resolved can lead to the end of the relationship. Doors notes that this so-called deal breakers are often desires of one partner for the relationship to get more serious, personal beliefs and values, the kind of lifestyle each person wants to live and wanting to have children. 3. You hold your partner to unrealistic standards Your partner is likely doing the best they can, but like any human, they're going to mess up and make mistakes sometimes. And while a supportive partner handles the sleep-ups like an adult, an unsupportive one will treat their partner like they should be perfect 100% of the time, leading to frustration on both ends. When your partner doesn't measure up to something they deem even sign up for, there is a tendency to try to change them. With no understanding that your own behavior plays a huge role, says Doors. By focusing on your partner, it allows for justification as to why they are the problem. 4. You're afraid of being alone Many people will avoid conflict and pretend that issues in their relationship don't exist simply because they live in fear of being alone. However, this strategy backfires, as all conflicts will rear their ugly heads eventually, and by then it's usually too late to solve them. Being afraid of being alone and thus willing to accept any relationship no matter how unhealthy is another common pattern that keeps relationships from working, says Doors. Appropriate boundaries need to be identified and enforced. 5. You rely on body language to convey your feelings At the beginning of a relationship, couples tend to be honest and open about their feelings and emotions, but as things progress, many people doom their relationships by assuming that their significant other can and should be able to read their body language and just know what's on their mind. Where a conversation once existed, now there's silence, an eye roll, or edgy energy emitting that becomes divisive, if not ultimately crushing. Explained relationship experts Greg Berend and Amira Rotola, authors of It's called a breakup because it's broken. Over time we get too comfortable in our relationship, too lazy, or sometimes even become apprehensive and we stop communicating thoughtfully with each other. 6. You compare your relationship to everyone else's The worst things are in your own relationship. The better everyone else's relationship is going to look. But by comparing yourself, you're only going to feel worse. You're ultimately sabotaging whatever is left of your relationship. Comparison is a thief of joy. Notes Berend and Rotola Focus in your own relationship rather than coveting someone else's. The grass is greener where you water it and no relationship is as flawless as it looks on Instagram. 7.  In a healthy, committed relationship, the compromise is to make the conscious choice to accept each other for exactly who you are, writes Laura Schlesinger, a relationship expert and the host of Sirius XM Radio Show, the Dr. Laura program. If you want your relationship to last, you need to give up your need to be right and in control all of the time. 8. You don't express your emotions similarly Happy ever found yourself crying in a feat of rage while your partner hasn't so much as shed a tear? This may be a sign that your relationship is on the rocks. A couple's meta-emotions, that is, how they feel about emotion, need to be on the same page. As marriage researcher John Gottman, PhD, discovered meta-emotion mismatches were 80% accurate in predicting divorce. It's not about the conflict itself. It's about handling it in a complementary way to how your partner handles it. 9. You see your partner as inferior Heaven's contempt for your partner is one of the four behaviors that Gottman says is a tell-tale indicator of an impending divorce. In his research, he pulled couples on how often they behaved with contempt, criticism, defensiveness and stonewallon. Then he measured perceived relationship satisfaction and found that the behaviors were over 90% successful in predicting divorce. According to Gottman, seeing your partner as inferior in particular is the case of debt for any relationship. And this makes sense given that another 2010 study published in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that couples who showed contempt for each other within their first year of marriage were more likely to divorce before their 16th wedding anniversary. 10.  In a 2014 study published in the Journal, Current Directions in Psychological Science, researchers determined that the people you love most are also the people you're most likely to take your anger out on, given that you interact with them more than anyone. But unfortunately, what they also found is that aggression is harmful to individuals and relationships, meaning that the more you hurt the people you love, the more you raise pushing them away. 11. You're holding on to the past. It's hard to focus on the present when you're busy living in the past. And this is especially true in a romantic relationship, as your complete and undivided emotional and physical presence are required to make things work. If you want your current relationship to last, leave the past in the past and let go of the things that are holding you back. 12. You have trust issues. Trust is not an easy thing to build with someone, especially if you've been betrayed in the past. But you should have faith in the person with whom you intend to spend the rest of your life. Sometimes you build a partnership on the foundation of mistrust. You risk losing both physical and emotional intimacy. Plus, you can also guarantee that, eventually, your partner will get fed up and walk away. 13. You love alcohol, but your partner doesn't. If you love a good night cab before heading to bed, then you should be sure that your life partner enjoys one as well. One 2013 study from the University of Buffalo found that around 50% of married couples with different alcohol habits got divorced before they hit the 10-year mark. On the other hand, partners who had similar drinking habits, whether they indulged, abstained, or consumed alcohol moderately, only had a divorce rate of about 30%. 14.  Secrets are no fun, especially in a long-term relationship. And what's even worse is lying about them, like when your partner keeps secrets from you and blames you when you call them out on their secrecy, says Terry Gaspert, MSW, LICSW, a relationship expert and therapist in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. They will say things like, you just couldn't handle it if I was open and honest with you, which is why I had to lie.  15. You never take any blame. Every couple fights, but healthy ones end them with both parties apologizing and taking partial blame for what is transpired. But in a relationship that's reaching its breaking point, you might find that either you or your partner refuse to accept any of the blame, with one of you painting themselves entirely as the victim. We're all taught a language of blame when we feel powerful emotions, says Kerry Davidson, CEO of Integrative Healthcare Company, Torneau Wellness. It's so much easier to become a victim than it is to think about our emotions as our body's way of telling us that our core needs for growth aren't being met. 16. You're not empathetic. A healthy and happy relationship should revolve around how each person is feeling. In times of conflict, we shift our mindset toward recognizing core needs of ourselves and our partners, explains Davidson. We try empathizing with our own unmet needs, empathizing with our partners unmet needs, and then coming up with a plan for meeting them both. However, partners in unstable relationships often find themselves fighting with their significant other with little to no regard for how the other person feels. 17. Your relationship lacks respect. A couple will never understand each other when there's a lack of reverence in the relationship, and if one partner has a blatant disrespect for the other person's life choices, neither partner will ever feel comfortable talking about their day, let alone their feelings or beliefs. The biggest reason that I see on why a relationship does not work out is that one partner does not respect the other, says Alexis Dent, owner of wedding vow company Exo Juliet. That is a formula for disaster, as they will never be on the same page and things will fall apart. 18. A big life event rocked the relationship. A big and unexpected life event, like the death of a parent or a sudden job layoff, can shake a relationship to its core, and often, this life-changing moments will result in other changes that many relationships struggle to survive. Sometimes due to a death in the family, development of illness or simply a desire to change careers, a person may want to move to a different area, work less, or pick up bad habits like drinking, drugs, or sex addiction, says Regina Demio, a matrimonial attorney in Bethesda, Maryland. If your partner doesn't agree with these changes, then you no longer have a shared vision of where you need to be or where you're heading, which leads to irreconcilable differences. 19. You don't trust your spouse with money. It's not necessarily how each partner spends money that causes problems in marriage, it's how one partner thinks their significant other is spending that does. When Ashley LeBron, a graduate student at Brigham Young University, BYU, and her fellow researchers studied couples and their spending habits in 2017, they found that husbands who viewed their wives as big spenders had the greatest financial conflicts regardless of actual spending habits. When it comes to the impact of finance on relationships, perceptions may be just as important, if not more important than reality. LeBron said in a statement, 20. You only think about yourself. Relationships are all about give and take, and if you take more than you give, then the balance will be thrown off and your partner will likely seek comfort in other places and people. This is such a well-known phenomenon that experts have even given it a name. It's called the social exchange theory. According to Mark V. Redman of Iowa State University, the theory outlines how we are disturbed when there is no equity in an exchange or where others are rewarded more for the same cost we incurred. 21. You don't express gratitude. When your significant other spends the entire day slaving away on a home cook meal, don't forget to thank them for all that hard work.  Taking a partner for granted on the mind's relationships explains Poppy Spencer, MSC, CPC, a certified counselor and relationship expert in Florida. Whether people acknowledge it or not, being of value to a significant other is essential. When gratitude is not expressed, emotional and sometimes physical health is compromised. You might think that your gratitude is implied, but it helps your partner to hear that they're appreciated. If this video inspired you, like the video. We love you.


When Matthew Stafford was allegedly, okay, interested in becoming an Indianapolis Colt, he was actually looking at homes in Indianapolis. Matthew Stafford was probably going to be my f***ing neighbor. In his mind, he was coming to Indianapolis in the Los Angeles Ram Strait, three first rounders. He goes there, all of a sudden the Colts are out of the market now, so it's nice to hear that we were actually in the real running with Matthew Stafford. And Matthew Stafford really wanted to come here before the Cabo Hotel.


What's up everybody? Jason here for jaskiescasebreaks.com. We are giving away the last eight spots in the double header series 2 baseball break And we're also giving away four filler spots in this filler here if you guys sold it out So again, this is a one box break that tops from black baseball Random teams number 10 So the way this first guys is first we do the break randomize customer names and teams should be the hits out Then at the end of the break will take all 30 customer names randomize them and the top eight will win a spot in the double header break And again guys here's a dice roller. So we're gonna do is we're gonna roll the dice We're gonna give away four spots. We're gonna randomize the original list We only sold 26 top four get a spot Then we'll paste in the four names here and copy and paste the four names for the randomizer at the end of the Break, then we'll do the break first distribute hits out And then we'll see who gets what so let's roll it and this is for to add the four spots into the break first So lucky number seven one two three four five six Seven so again seven Top four get a free spot in this filler here. So they go Eric Sean Sean and Matt So they go congratulations So we're gonna add your four names here And I'll put a little character sign at the end of all of them Now we're gonna use this dice roll again seven times to randomize customer names and teams one two three four five six and Seven Tyler down to Ethan and let's go seven times here now on the teams one two three four five six Seven Royals down to the blue jays. All right, I got a guy stick to what you got no traits But I'll quickly show you guys your teams. All right, so there you go. And let me actually What I forgot to do was paste in the teams or the names with Randomizer over here So that's the original list and let's copy and paste the top four At you. All right guys, so there's your teams right there. I am Peter and just sold out the Impeccable break, so we'll be doing that next. All right guys, so stick to what you got with one box break. All right, we got Mac Chapman We got Raphael Devers and the labor toward it for the Oakland A's Mattles, so there you go. Who has Oakland really quick? Zachary Goldberg. There you go, man Little hit there for you All right, guys, and now let's give away the spots in the double header. Good luck everybody So here's a dice roller. Here's a customer names that bought in and the free spots we gave away Let's roll the dice and we got ourselves a four to four eight the hard way Good luck. Top eight get in one two three four five six seven eight four and a four eight And we're getting away eight double header spots So Jeffrey you're in Sean you're in Jason Matt. You're in Zach Ethan Jeffrey and Matt Look at that top eight get in and we had a couple winners from our free spots getting guys Matt and Sean So there you go guys coming up in a little bit with Joe is gonna be the double header. Appreciate you guys