The following article is condensed from the chapter on Moral Education in Herbert Spencer's Education, Intellectual, Moral and Physical. While it is seen that for the purpose of gaining a livelihood and elaborate preparation is needed, it appears to be thought that for the bringing up of children, no preparation whatever is needed. In the absence of this preparation, the management of children, and more especially the moral management, is lamentably bad. Parents either never think about the matter at all, or else their conclusions are crude and inconsistent. In most cases, and especially on the part of mothers, the treatment adopted on every occasion is that which the impulse of the moment prompts. It springs not from any reasoned out conviction as to what will conduce to the child's welfare, but merely expresses the passing parental feelings, whether good or ill, and varies from hour to hour as those feelings vary. Or if these blind dictates of passion are supplemented by any definite doctrines and methods, they are those that have been handed down from the past, or those suggested by the remembrances of childhood, or those adopted from nurses and servants, methods devised not by the enlightenment, but by the ignorance of the time. Let us go on to consider the true aims and methods of moral education. When a child falls or runs its head against the table, it suffers a pain, the remembrance of which tends to make it more careful for the future. And by an occasional repetition of like experiences, it is eventually disciplined into a proper guidance of its movements. If it lays hold of the fire bars, thrust its finger into a candle flame, or spills boiling water on any part of its skin, the resulting burn or scald is a lesson not easily forgotten. Now in these and like cases, nature illustrates to us in the simplest way the true theory and practice of moral discipline. Observe in the first place that in bodily injuries and their penalties, we have misconduct and its consequences reduce to their simplest forms. Though according to their popular acceptations, right and wrong are words scarcely applicable to actions that have none but direct bodily effects, yet whoever considers the matter will see that such actions must be as much classifiable under these heads as any other actions. Note in the second place the character of the punishments by which these physical transgressions are prevented. Punishments, we call them, in the absence of a better word, for they are not punishments in the literal sense. They are not artificial and unnecessary inflictions of pain, but are simply the beneficent checks to actions that are essentially at variance with bodily welfare. Checks in the absence of which life would quickly be destroyed by bodily injuries. It is the peculiarity of these penalties, if we must so call them, that they are nothing more than the unavoidable consequences of the deeds which they follow. They are nothing more than the inevitable reactions entailed by the child's actions. Let it be further borne in mind that these painful reactions are proportionate to the degree in which the organic laws have been transgressed. A slight accident brings a slight pain, a more serious one, a greater pain. When a child tumbles over the doorstep it is not ordained that it shall suffer in excess of the amount necessary, with the view of making it still more cautious than the necessary suffering will make it. But from its daily experience it is left to learn the greater or less penalties of greater or less errors, and to behave accordingly. And then mark lastly that these natural reactions which follow the child's wrong actions are constant, direct, unhesitating, and not to be escaped. No threats, but a silent, rigorous performance. Still more significant will these general truths appear when we remember that they hold throughout adult life, as well as throughout infantile life. It is by an experimentally gained knowledge of the natural consequences that men and women are checked when they go wrong. After home education has ceased, and when there are no longer parents and teachers to forbid this or that kind of conduct, there comes into play a discipline like that by which the young child is taught its first lessons in self-guidance. If the youth entering upon the business of life idles away his time and fulfills slowly or unskillfully the duties entrusted to him, there by and by follows the natural penalty. He is discharged and left to suffer for a while the evils of relative poverty. On the unpunctual man failing alike his appointments of business and pleasure, they continually fall the consequent inconveniences, losses, and deprivations. The avaricious tradesman who charges too high a rate of profit loses his customers, and so is checked in his greediness, and so throughout the life of every citizen. In the quotation so often made at proposes of these cases, the burnt child dreads the fire. We see not only that the analogy between this social discipline and nature's early discipline of infants is universally recognised, but we also see an implied conviction that this discipline is of the most efficient kind. Have we not here then the guiding principle of moral education? Must we not infer that the system so beneficent in its effects, alike during infancy and maturity, will be equally beneficent through youth? Is it not manifest that as ministers and interpreters of nature, it is the function of parents to see that their children habitually experience the true consequences of their conduct, the natural reactions, neither warding them off nor intensifying them, nor putting artificial consequences in place of them? Probably, however, not a few will contend that already most parents do this, that the punishments they inflict are in the majority of cases the true consequences of ill conduct, that parental anger, venting itself in harsh words and deeds, is the result of a child's transgression. But observe that the discipline on which we are insisting is not so much the experience of parental approbation or disapprobation, which in most cases is only a secondary consequence of a child's conduct, but it is the experience of those results which would naturally flow from the conduct in the absence of parental opinion or interference. The truly instructive and salutary consequences are not those inflicted by the parents when they take upon themselves to be nature's proxies, but they are those inflicted by nature herself. We will endeavour to make this distinction clear by a few illustrations, which, while they show what we mean by natural reactions as contrasted with artificial ones, will afford some directly practical suggestions. In every family where there are young children there almost daily occur cases of what mothers call making a litter. A child has had out its box of toys and leaves them scattered about the floor. In most cases the trouble of rectifying this disorder falls anywhere but in the right place. If in the nursery the nurse herself, with many grumblings, undertakes the task. If below stairs the task usually devolves either on one of the elder children or on the housemaid. The transgressor being visited with nothing more than a scolding. In this very simple case, however, there are many parents wise enough to follow out, more or less consistently, the normal course, out of making the child itself collect the toys or shreds. The labour of putting things in order is the true consequence of having put them in disorder. Every trader in his office, every wife in her household has daily experience of this fact. And if education be a preparation for the business of life, then every child should also from the beginning have daily experience of this fact. If the natural penalty be met by any refractory behaviour, then the proper course is to let the child feel the ulterior reaction consequent on its disobedience. Having refused or neglected to pick up and put away the things it has scattered about, and having thereby entailed the trouble of doing this on someone else, the child should, on subsequent occasions, be denied the means of giving this trouble. When next it petitions for its toy box, the reply of its mamma should be, the last time you had your toys you left them lying on the floor, and Jane had to pick them up, so that as you will not put away your toys when you have done with them, I cannot let you have them. This is obviously a natural consequence, neither increased nor lessened, and must be so recognised by a child. The penalty comes too at the moment when it is most keenly felt. A newborn desire is balked at the moment of anticipated gratification, and the strong impression so produced can scarcely fail to have an effect on the future conduct. Add to which that, by this method, a child is early taught the lesson which cannot be learned too soon, that in this world of ours pleasures are rightly to be obtained only by labour. Take another case. Not long since we had frequently to listen to the reprimands visited on a little girl who was scarcely ever ready in time for the daily walk. Of eager disposition and apt to become thoroughly absorbed in the occupation of the moment, Constance never thought of putting on her things until the rest were ready. The governess and the other children had almost invariably to wait, and from the mamma there almost invariably came the same scolding. Utterly as this system failed, it never occurred to the mamma to let Constance experience the natural penalty, nor indeed would she try it when it was suggested to her. In the world the penalty of being behind time is the loss of some advantage that would else have been gained. The train is gone, or the steamboat is just leaving its moorings. And everyone, in cases perpetually occurring, may see that it is the prospective deprivations entailed by being too late, which prevent people from being too late. Is not the inference obvious? Should not these prospective deprivations control the child's conduct also? If Constance is not ready at the appointed time, the natural result is that of being left behind and losing her walk. And no one can doubt that after having once or twice remained at home while the rest were enjoying themselves in the fields, and after having felt that this loss of a much prized gratification was solely due to want of promptitude, some amendment would take place. At any rate the measure would be more effective than that perpetual scolding which ends only in producing callousness. Again when children with more than usual carelessness break or lose the things given to them, the natural penalty, the penalty which makes grown-up persons more careful, is the consequent inconvenience. The want of the lost or damaged article and the cost of supplying its place are the experiences by which men and women are disciplined in these matters, and the experience of children should be as much as possible assimilated to theirs. We do not refer to that early period in which toys are pulled to pieces in the process of learning their physical properties, and at which the results of carelessness cannot be understood, but to a later period when the meaning and advantages of property are perceived. When a boy old enough to possess a pen knife uses it so roughly as to snap the blade, a thoughtless parent, or some indulgent relative, will commonly forthwith buy him another. Not seeing that by doing this a valuable lesson is lost. In such a case a father may properly explain that pen knives cost money, and that to get money requires labour, that he cannot afford to purchase new pen knives for one who loses or breaks them, and that until he sees evidence of greater carefulness he must decline to make good the loss. A parallel discipline may be used as a means of checking extravagance. These few familiar instances, here chosen because of the simplicity with which they illustrate our point, will make clear to everyone the distinction between those natural penalties which we contend are the truly efficient ones, and those artificial penalties which parents commonly substitute for them. Let us note the many and great superiorities of this principle over the principle, or rather the empirical practice, which prevails in most families. In the first place right conceptions of cause and effect are early formed, and by frequent and consistent experience are eventually rendered definite and complete. Proper conduct in life is much better guaranteed when the good and evil consequences of action are rationally understood than when they are merely believed on authority. A child who finds that disorderliness entails the subsequent trouble of putting things in order, or who misses a gratification from dilateriness, or whose want of care is followed by the loss or breakage of some much prized possession, not only experiences a keenly felt consequence, but gains a knowledge of causation, both the one and the other being just like those which adult life will bring. Whereas a child who in such cases receives some reprimand or some factitious penalty, not only experiences a consequence for which it often cares very little, but lacks that instruction respecting the essential natures of good and evil conduct which it would else have gathered. It is a vice of the common system of artificial rewards and punishments that by substituting for the natural results of misbehaviour certain threatened tasks or castigations it produces a radically wrong standard of moral guidance. Having throughout infancy and boyhood always regarded parental or tutorial displeasure as the result of a forbidden action, the youth has gained an established association of ideas between such action and such displeasure as cause and effect, and consequently when parents and tutors have abdicated and their displeasure is not to be feared, the restraint on a forbidden action is in great measure removed. The true restraints, the natural reactions having yet to be learned by sad experience. As writes one who has had personal knowledge of this short-sighted system, young men let loose from school plunge into every description of extravagance.  Another great advantage of this natural system of discipline is that it is a system of pure justice and will be recognised by every child as such. Whoso suffers nothing more than the evil which obviously follows naturally from his own misbehaviour is much less likely to think himself wrongly treated than if he suffers an evil artificially inflicted on him. And this will be true of children as of men. Take the case of a boy who is habitually reckless of his clothes, scrambles through hedges without caution, or is utterly regardless of mud. If he is beaten or sent to bed, he is apt to regard himself as ill-used and his mind is more likely to be occupied by thinking over his injuries than repenting of his transgressions. But suppose he is required to rectify as far as he can the harm he has done to clean off the mud with which he has covered himself or to mend the tear as well as he can. Will he not feel that the evil is one of his own producing? Will he not while paying this penalty be continuously conscious of the connection between it and its cause? And will he not, despite his irritation, recognise more or less clearly the justice of the arrangement? Again the tempers both of parents and children are much less liable to be ruffled under this system than under the ordinary system. Instead of letting children experience the painful results which naturally follow from wrong conduct, the usual course pursued by parents is to inflict themselves certain other painful results. A double mischief arises from this. Making as they do multiplied family laws and identifying their own supremacy and dignity with the maintenance of these laws, it happens that every transgression comes to be regarded as an offence against themselves and a cause of anger on their part. Add to which the further irritations which result from taking upon themselves in the shape of extra labour or cost, those evil consequences which should have been allowed to fall on wrongdoers. Similarly with the children. Penalties which the necessary reaction of things brings round upon them penalties which are inflicted by an impersonal agency produce an irritation which is comparatively slight and transient whereas penalties which are voluntarily inflicted by a parent and are afterward remembered as cause by him or her produce an irritation both greater and more continued. Just consider how disastrous would be the result if this empirical method were pursued from the beginning. Suppose it were possible for parents to take upon themselves the physical sufferings entailed on their children by ignorance and awkwardness and that while bearing these evil consequences they visited on their children certain other evil consequences with the view of teaching them the impropriety of their conduct.  Would not the daily mishaps be sources of far more anger than now? Would not there be chronic ill temper on both sides? Yet an exactly parallel policy is pursued in after years. A father who punishes his boy for carelessly or willfully breaking a sister's toy and then himself pays for a new toy does substantially the same thing inflicts an artificial penalty on the transgressor and takes the natural penalty on himself his own feelings and those of the transgressor being alike needlessly irritated. If he simply required restitution to be made he would produce far less heart-burning. If he told the boy that a new toy must be bought at his the boy's cost and that his supply of pocket money must be withheld to the needful extent there would be much less cause for ebullition of temper on either side. While in the deprivation afterward felt the boy would experience the equitable and salutary consequence. In brief the system of discipline by natural reactions is less injurious to temper alike because it is perceived on both sides to be nothing more than pure justice and because it more or less substitutes the impersonal agency of nature for the personal agency of parents. At present mothers and fathers are mostly considered by their offspring as friend-enemies determined as their impressions inevitably are by the treatment they receive and oscillating as that treatment does between bribery and thwarting between petting and scolding between gentleness and castigation children necessarily acquire conflicting beliefs respecting the parental character a mother commonly thinks it quite sufficient to tell her little boy that she is his best friend and assuming that he is in duty bound to believe her concludes that he will forthwith do so it is all for your own good I know what is proper for you better than you do yourself you are not old enough to understand it now but when you grow up you will thank me for doing what I do these and like assertions are daily re-iterated meanwhile the boy is daily suffering positive penalties and is hourly forbidden to do this, that and the other which he was anxious to do by words he hears that his happiness is the end in view but from the accompanying deeds he habitually receives more or less pain utterly incompetent as he is to understand that future which his mother has in view or how this treatment conduces to the happiness of that future he judges by such results as he feels and finding these results anything but pleasurable he becomes skeptical respecting these professions of friendship and is it not folly to expect any other issue must not the child judge by such evidence as he has got and does not this evidence seem to warrant his conclusion the mother would reason in just the same way if similarly placed if in the circle of her acquaintances she found someone who was constantly thwarting her wishes uttering sharp reprimands and occasionally inflicting actual penalties on her she would pay but little attention to any professions of anxiety for her welfare which accompanied these acts why then does she suppose that her boy will conclude otherwise but now observe how different will be the results of the system we contend for be consistently pursued if the mother not only avoids becoming the instrument of punishment but plays the part of a friend by warning her boy of the punishments which nature will inflict take a case and that it may illustrate the mode in which this policy is to be early initiated let it be one of the simplest cases suppose that prompted by the experimental spirit so conspicuous in children whose proceedings instinctively conform to the inductive method of inquiry suppose that so prompted the child is amusing himself by lighting pieces of paper in the candle and watching them burn if his mother is of the ordinary unreflective stamp she will either on the plea of keeping the child out of mischief or from fear that he will burn himself command him to desist and in case of non-compliance will snatch the paper from him on the other hand should he be so fortunate as to have a mother of sufficient rationality who knows that this interest with which the child is watching the paper burn results from a healthy inquisitiveness without which he would never have emerged out of infantile stupidity and who is also wise enough to consider the moral results of interference she will reason thus if I put a stop to this I shall prevent the acquirement of a certain amount of knowledge it is true that I may save my child from a burn but what then? he is sure to burn himself some time and it is quite essential to his safety in life that he should learn by experience the properties of flame moreover if I forbid him from running this present risk he is sure hereafter to run the same or greater risk when no one is present to prevent him whereas if he should have any accident now that I am by I can save him from any great injury add to which the advantage that he will have in future some dread of fire and will be less likely to burn himself to death or set the house in a flame when others are absent furthermore were I to make him desist I should thwart him in the pursuit of what is in itself a purely harmless and indeed instructive gratification and he will be sure to regard me with more or less ill feeling ignorant as he is of the pain from which I would save him and feeling only the pain of a balked desire he could not fail to look upon me as the cause of that pain to save him from a hurt which he cannot conceive and which has therefore no existence for him I inflict upon him a hurt which he feels keenly enough and so become from his point of view a minister of evil my best course then is simply to warn him of the danger and to be ready to prevent any serious damage and following out this conclusion she says to the child I fear that you will hurt yourself if you do that suppose now that the child perseveres as he probably will and suppose that he ends by burning himself what are the results? in the first place he has gained an experience which he must gain eventually and which for his own safety he cannot gain too soon and in the second place he has found that his mother's disapproval or warning was meant for his welfare he has a further positive experience of her benevolence a further reason for placing confidence in her judgment and her kindness a further reason for loving her of course in those occasional hazards whether as a risk of broken limbs or other serious bodily injury forcible prevention is called for but leaving out these extreme cases the system pursued should be not that of guarding a child against the small dangers into which it daily runs but that of advising and warning it against them and by consistently pursuing this course a much stronger filial affection will be generated than commonly exists if here as elsewhere the discipline of the natural reactions is allowed to come into play if in all those out of door scramblings and indoor experiments by which children are liable to hurt themselves they are allowed to persevere subject only to discussion more or less earnest according to the risk there cannot fail to arise an ever increasing faith in the parental friendship and guidance not only as shown before does the adoption of this principle enable fathers and mothers to avoid the chief part of that odium which attaches to the infliction of positive punishment but as we here see it enables them further to avoid the odium that attaches to constant thwartings and even to turn each of those incidents which commonly cause squabbles into a means of strengthening the mutual good feeling instead of being told in words which deeds seem to contradict that their parents are their best friends children will learn this by a consistent daily experience and so learning it will acquire a degree of trust and attachment which nothing else can give bear constantly in mind the truth that the aim of your discipline should be to produce a self-governing being not to produce a being to be governed by others where your children fated to pass their lives as slaves you could not too much accustom them to slavery during their childhood but as they are by and by to be free men with no one to control their daily conduct you cannot too much accustom them to self-control while they are still under your eye aim therefore to diminish the amount of parental government as fast as you can substitute for it in your child's mind that self-government arising from a foresight of results in infancy a considerable amount of absolutism is necessary a three year old urchin playing with an open razor cannot be allowed to learn by this discipline of consequences for the consequences may in such case be too serious but as intelligence increases the number of instances calling for peremptory interference may be and should be diminished with the view of gradually ending them as maturity is approached all periods of transition are dangerous and the most dangerous is the transition from the restraint of the family circle to the non-restraint of the world hence the importance of pursuing the policy we advocate which alike by cultivating a child's faculty of self-restraint by continually increasing the degree in which it is left to its self-constraint and by so bringing it step by step to a state of unaided self-constraint obliterates the ordinary sudden and hazardous change from externally governed youth to internally governed maturity lastly always remember that to educate rightly is not a simple and easy thing but a complex and extremely difficult thing the hardest task which devolves upon adult life if you would carry out with success a rational and civilized system you must be prepared for considerable mental exertion for some study, some ingenuity, some patience, some self-control you will have habitually to trace the consequences of conduct to consider what are the results which in adult life follow certain kinds of acts and then you will have to devise methods by which parallel results shall be entailed on the parallel acts of your children


As for that little hitch, we now bring you the report on the Labour Party's assurances to Nigerians. It's been weeks since the general elections, with various parties tightening their campaigns and weighing voters to their side. The Labour Party also owes a global fund raise in Titan, as it's part of each campaign strategy. Look at the point of emphasis, there are certain things that must be emphasised if you are to get... Dr Loretta Wo Oko, health expert, notes that the state of the country's health system is in a bad shape, as government after government is yet to reach the zenith for the sector. She insists the Labour Party will bring a positive and endearing change to the sector he voted in. Nigeria has a dysfunctional health care system, so the Obidati government, when we come on board as the team that is managing the affairs of Nigeria, have decided that we must make health care a front burner issue and bring it straight for those 133 million people and beyond. Following the pandemic, in Dewey's recession in 2020, Nigeria's economic growth recovered but macroeconomics stability weakened. Amidst global commodity shocks, our depreciating currency, trade restrictions, surge in inflation are all pushing millions of Nigerians into poverty. Addressing the economic setback in the country, experts say the only way forward is by changing from a consuming nation to a production nation. If you subsidize a product or a service or any sort of good as we have with petroleum, you know, the fuel, the PMS, when we subsidize it, the target would be to help, the poor helps more businesses, but then you notice that those people are not the beneficiary of that subsidy. So the subsidy is still hijacked by the same rent seeking system. So it doesn't work. We are calling security very well. It means that our mainstay of our GDP, of the economy, which is agriculture, will be properly and properly revived. It means that people can go back to the farms, it means that people can now start farming properly. Nigeria's springs in the rise and in security, violent conflicts in the country have bettered new consequences, even as the government deploys measures to fight the IDRA-edit challenge. You can see security agencies as enemies, not as friends. And that is what the system has created. We have a system that uses the security agencies against the people. You see politicians use them against their opponents. So they see the security agencies as enemies to themselves. The national security sector takes you out of mouth again and again in recent times. But what exactly it is and why is it what it is? What has it been? Has it been a default architecture or has it been a deliberately crafted architecture?  But then if there's not a process that is going to ensure that the intelligence we have is handled by intelligent people, then we'll just continue to recycle intelligence that goes in and comes out just the way it went in. Perhaps February elections will be a deciding factor for our turnaround if electorate go for the most-vibed candidate, especially for the presidency. Emmanuel Oulu-Bubu-Kun, plus the news.


Our staff have been demanding an improvement to travel administration for years, and for 18 months we've been trying to achieve that with other pieces of software unsuccessfully. And then Intellidox comes along and in eight weeks we've formulated a workable solution. Intellidox is absolutely delighted to be able to gift the ANU the use of our innovative technology. Putting innovation in the hands of innovators to us makes a lot of sense. The Intellidox solution allows us to actually upload the information straight into the finance system, straight into the HR system, straight into the student system. It allows us all of the online validation that we would want. It's completely integrated with the rest of the university systems. This frees up a lot of administrative time to work on other things that add more value than shuffling pieces of paper around the university. For two ANU alumni to come along and offer a solution to one of our biggest problems, that's true. Giving this gift to the ANU is going to transform the way the university does business and it's going to be able to take advantage of leading digital technology. Phil and I are both passionate alumni and it's just such a great privilege and an honour to be able to share our technology that we've invented with our alma mater who taught us so much and given us the opportunities to think globally and to meet great people in business around the world. And the ANU really set us on that path and set us on that journey which we're deeply grateful for. The gift that Michelle and Phil are giving us not only gives us a great commercial return in terms of saving us money within the university, but I think the desire that they both have of establishing a centre which is focused on developing an academic and educational relationship which allows students to really engage with the company in an entrepreneurial way. We're very interested in commercialising those solutions that the university creates for efficiencies inside the university so that perhaps other universities can take advantage of those efficiencies. And indeed other organisations can perhaps adopt what the ANU's leading edge solutions are. And then further on from that, putting our technology in the hands of other innovators who knows what they will create. The value of this gift is what we do with it and the value of the gift is what we achieve not just over the past eight weeks but over the next two years in doing more paper processes. So this gift could well be worth more than $10 million to the university.


Freedom! Today I want to talk to you about Twitter verification. Twitter has recently opened up their verification platform to anyone who wants to apply, which includes you. I've already asked for verification for myself and for freedom, and we're pending to see maybe if one of us gets it. But while we wait, I'd like to let you know that you can check this out should be behind me, the page where you can see if you get yourself verified. Now this is somewhat of a long process and if you're verifying for a brand, say as your channel rather than yourself, they will ask you for additional identification such as a passport or something like that. Now most channels, most YouTube channels are brands and not people. So that is something to keep in mind that you are basically applying for your brand, your identity as an entity, not as a person. So yeah, get your IDs ready! Anyway, check that out in the description down below. Also, if you'd like to learn more about YouTube verification, there is a card on screen now where you can learn how YouTube recently changed the game dealing with YouTube verifications. I hope that this video has been helpful for you. If it has, let us know in the comment section down below. Till next time, don't forget to like, subscribe, and do all those things that make us love our jobs. Also, be awesome to yourself and amazing to each other. Bye Freedom Family!


We like to refer it to the grunts as the queen of battle, so you know the king likes to protect his queen So whenever the grunts need us whether it's indirect fire support. They just need more more Marines on deck We're there for them We bring the heavy load to the gunfight So from any direction when you're honest or whatever support asset causes them We bring the stale rain from the sky and we'll destroy any target in the grid square You dictate the tempo of everyone else you want to move you're gonna find artillery if you want to move something You're gonna call it for your case


It's good to relax after a busy day. An average day, but a busy day. These fellows wearing the warm coats spend a good part of each day just searching for food. And in this sea, at this point in time, it's becoming difficult to find enough food to go around. But things are looking up, as you will see. Amchitka Island, the fourth large island from the far end of the craggy Aleutian chain. About 1,400 miles southwest of Anchorage, Alaska. Wildlife abounds throughout the island chain. But most unique of all inhabitants in the frigid waters around these cheerless fogbound islands, the sea otter. An aquatic mammal, ungainly and almost helpless ashore. In the sea, he has grace and style. Bristling silver whiskers make him seem serious and wise. Fact is, he is shy and suspicious. He has a troubled memory of man, who for centuries had been a fearsome enemy. Time was when sea otters, numerous as flocks of birds, swam and fished the coastal waters of America from the outer tip of the Aleutians on down into Mexico. But that was long ago. Perhaps the world's most luxurious fur, fine, dense and very valuable. Almost two centuries of hunters had roamed the seas, decimating sea otter colonies. And by the turn of the 20th century, these pleasant, playful creatures were on the verge of extinction. Other fur-bearing animals along these wind-worn shores suffered much the same plight. But before great natural resources could be lost forever, conservation had begun. In 1911, the International Fur Seal Treaty was signed. The sea otter and other animals were now protected by law. In 1913, the Aleutian chain was made a national wildlife refuge. The few remaining sea otter colonies began to grow again. But the process was painfully slow. Sea otters reproduce in their own time. A single pup is the rule. Twins or triplets are extremely rare. Justation lasts a year. And for another year, the pup is helpless. It lives an easygoing life, mostly clinging to its mother's chest. She is indulgent and affectionate, but strict. Now and again she may cuff the pup, teaching him to dive for food, stay underwater, anchor himself in the sea kelp to hide from his enemies and snooze. A sea otter lives about 15 years. Each year a colony can be expected to increase by only one pup per 10 sea otters of population. Even so, sea otter populations have grown. There are large colonies in the Aleutians, in Prince William Sound, some in Monterey Bay, California. Perhaps a total of 25 or 30,000 sea otters. But where sea otters once flourished in great numbers, no colonies exist today. At Amchipka, the colony grew until there were more mouths to feed than natural food resources could handle. At last count perhaps 3,000 otters. Including Harvey here. This chap has a voracious appetite. He will eat a quarter of his own weight in a day. Shellfish is favorite, but also quantities of fish and squid. Table manners? He's irrepressible. His chest is his table. He uses his front paws with dexterity and self-assurance. Still he can't seem to avoid spilling his food. Contaminated fur will lose its water repellency. When this happens, the otter's skin is exposed and vulnerable. His body temperature drops and the icy cold of the sea threatens his life. Since his life depends on cleanliness, he spends a great deal of time scrubbing his fur after meals. Fast-moving sea water helps wash away food scraps, but he prefers to handle the job himself. He scrubs vigorously, behind the ears, under the arms, the chest where most of the food scraps fall, the top of the head. Oh, that feels good. Grooming himself is his most time-consuming daily chore. But meals are important too. An average adult male sea otter weighs about 80 pounds. To sustain this weight, he needs plenty of food. Amchitka waters once teamed with food. Today, this same area can no longer support a growing colony. Ordinarily, the sea otter is not migratory. If he were, he would find abundance where sea otter colonies lived two centuries ago, in those miles of coastal sea between the Aleutians and California. Alaska had long hoped to transplant hard-pressed Amchitka sea otters to selected new homes where they could thrive and multiply. It was difficult and ambitious undertaking. Amchitka, in 1968, was a busy island. The United States Atomic Energy Commission was engaged in a program to develop the island as a remote supplementary site for underground nuclear tests. There was equipment and ground transportation. There were facilities and quarters that might accommodate Alaska's transplant team. And there was C-130 aircraft on regular schedules, arriving fully loaded with equipment and supplies, and very often departing with no cargoes assigned for return flights. Operations sea otter transplant could get underway, and with the AEC on hand and ready to help, on a scale not otherwise possible. A cooperative conservation effort. The United States Department of the Interior, the State of Alaska, and the United States Atomic Energy Commission working as a team. Aleut fishermen, skilled and weather-hardened, had arrived on Amchitka in July 1968. Their supervisor, a marine biologist from the Alaska State Department of Fish and Game, crews head for the sweeping beds of kelp offshore where the sea otters hide. It's a rolling, restless sea. The air is damp and brittle cold. But these men are hardy descendants of Aleuts who hunted these same waters many years ago. On the sea, away from shore, they are not alone. Here and there, a dark, whiskered head. Sea kelp is protection for the otter. Here he can hide from men. He can anchor himself against rough seas or sudden squalls and dine on clams, sea urchins and fish. The nylon nets are strung out around the kelp beds. If a fellow is curious or careless, he'll find his way into a net. Morning after morning, the boats are out and the nets are spread. The crews carefully collect about 50 otters each week. They will be brought ashore, bed and cared for until they can be flown to their new homes. Easy now. Into the holding tank. That's more like it. There are four large holding tanks. For cleanliness, fresh sea water is pumped continuously into the tanks as unclean water is flushed out. Each tank holds 10 to 15 sea otters. Harvey hasn't changed a bit. The service is good. And the menu is good. Squid, shrimp, crab. During this phase of the transplant operation, our friends consumed a total of 10,000 pounds of food. 50 or 60 otters are just enough for one transplant. They are made ready for the trip. Easy does it. The C-130 cargo aircraft can accommodate 60 sea otters. There would be a total of seven transplants. Flights would vary from three to eight hours depending upon destination. To keep the passengers comfortable, cabin pressures are maintained at a simulated altitude of 1,500 feet and at the lowest possible temperature. The take-off and a flight over the Pacific destinations 2,000 miles away in southeast Alaska. Otters are transferred to amphibious aircraft for short flights to six selected locations near Annette and Sitka or to boats for the shuttle trip to Privilev. In all, 359 sea otters by summer's end transported and gently released into the friendly waters off the Alaskan coast. After the brief humiliation of captivity, they are pleased with their new freedom. They are healthy, unruffled by the flight from Antitka, hungry as usual, and still have a sense of humor. This story has a happy ending. Otters have lived in these seas before.  It will take time and there is still some danger. Seen through a gun site, an otter is an easy target from the shore close by. A part of the happy ending is up to us. Nature will see to the rest. Unmolested, these few transplanted sea otters will reproduce and in time become substantial colonies. A rich legacy for generations to come. Right now they are happy in new homes. They have been rudely moved, but they will adjust. As before, they will search out the food they need. They will keep their coats clean and warm. They will play and amuse each other, even as you and I. Right, Harvey?


Last week I did an honest feedback of my own SCP article. This week I've decided to do something that is someone else's, and what was suggested to me is SCP-4951, the South Central Protective Services New Containment Insurance Entity. Now I should note that most of the people who recommended this article to me said it was underrated, and after reading it I'm not entirely sure I agree with them. It is good, and it is rated plus 33, which if your article is rated under 40 after a month it's probably underperforming. I don't know that that means it's underrated though. Now it's only been up for about 19 days, so it may still hit that plus 40 in a month thing, but it is worth taking a look at and understanding what it does right, and what it does wrong, because it does a lot of both. So let's get started. So I'm not going to read the article to you. That would be silly. The article exists on the wiki, you can always go look at it if you'd like. I will put up on the screen several important lines if I cover them, but I will summarize it to you for the sake of brevity. The article is about an object which is a self-propagating digital cloud-based entity capable of writing portions of itself on any operating system to which it is exposed, and it's believed that it's the digitized consciousness of Horatio Avalar. Now apparently, this individual uploaded themselves into a computer system, but in a distributed sense that they exist in, you know, a desktop in Wyoming and a desktop in England and a desktop in Russia and a laptop in China in little parts, but is somehow still a cohesive entity and personality. And it has decided that it's going to use anomalous abilities to create insurance companies. Now you may be wondering how do those two things connected and really thematically they aren't, which opens up some of the early problems with the SCP, but before we get into that, I want to talk a little bit about what it does right. Now first of all, the special containment procedures are very concise and for the object we're talking about, which is a Keeter and also a Thamiel, it's a slash, which we could get into that if we wanted to, but it's not really that important, except in as much as to tell you that there are people on the site who will downvote your article simply because you put it as Thamiel, so keep that in mind, but the special containment procedures are fairly concise and they also really do a good job of telling you a little bit about the object without using any descriptive bits. It uses phrases like Foundation Assets are to maintain no less than 51% stock share in any publicly traded corporation created by SCP-4951, which makes you think, oh lord, this thing is making corporations. It mentions the insurance policies as well. And this is a very key piece of advice for most new writers. When you are creating your special containment procedures, you can tell the reader about your object without describing anything. Because special containment procedures are containment procedures. They would be you telling the audience, say for example here, all proposed insurance policies generated by the SCP are to be immediately sealed. Now when you're doing that, you're not telling the audience SCP-4951 creates insurance policies, but they also, through context, can figure that out. This is a very important and oftentimes very difficult thing for people to get right. And this SCP article does a very good job of that. It also does a very good job of showing images alongside it. I'll tell you this, images only help. If you can find a good Creative Commons compliant image to go with your article, always include it. Now the description itself is also very concise and it doesn't go into very much extraneous details. But the description is where we start to run into some problems. Because concise though it may be, it's dealing with two different, basically thematic choices. One is a AI that used to be a person and the insurance companies that that AI is creating. So this isn't always a bad thing. If you can unify them in a way that works. And it's especially not a big problem if the two competing elements actually make sense together. And sometimes if you do it like that, people don't even notice that there's two different elements involved. If you have an anomalous cell phone that is indestructible that also allows you to place anomalous calls into the past, those are two separate anomalies and they're sort of unrelated. But the indestructible cell phone is the base and core object. Then you go into what it can do. So I'm not saying that's a good idea for an SCP, I'm just saying if you can unite your elements together in a way that is seamless, that is for the best. In this case, it's not seamless. You've got an AI that used to be a person that makes insurance policies or I'm sorry, makes insurance corporations that issue insurance policies. Now these insurance policies are sort of the split focus of the article between it and the character and both stories or I should say both narrative arcs that it tries to paint are done a disservice by splitting your attention between the two of them. Finally the very first log is where the SCP starts to run into bigger problems. So the first log is an example of computer systems that the AI has put part of itself into. The problem is that there are nine individual instances listed and most of them don't actually add much to the story that this is trying to tell. You can get away with four of these, probably even less if you really really wanted to. But the important part is that when you're creating a long list of notes or component law, this is an object log so it's just basically objects that the SCP foundation has in its custody that are related to this object. And of course there are more of them than just nine, but this is supposed to be the nine that are so important they have to be included in this document. But when reading them, I don't understand what about them is necessarily so important that they have to be communicated to the reader. And this drags down the pacing considerably in the article, almost to a standstill before you get to anything particularly interesting. And a lot of this includes needless detail. The kinds of detail that don't really grab a reader. Like the second one, I'm going to read it for you real quick. Device is a Nokia 5610 express music. Screen is inoperable. Device rests at 41 degrees Celsius when in a powered state. Battery life when disconnected from power supply is 112 seconds. Now importantly this object is key to the communication of this object to SCP foundation staff or literally anyone. We can't talk if this is turned off. And that's important, but this section goes on for far too long. And then we get to an interview log. Now the interview logs are where the article actually becomes somewhat interesting, primarily because it focuses on the character that is SCP-4951. It gets just a couple of pieces of dialogue in the first interview log.    These are all responses to things that the researcher says. Now at the end of this, it says hostile AI hosted within multiple electronic devices recommending anger management counselor. Now that line on its own is quite entertaining to me. It's very funny to think that the foundation runs into AIs so often that they have a policy in their mind to go, this one is angry. We should probably get an anger counselor. That to me is pretty funny. Now this is compounded by the next test in which another person comes in and asks them basically is once taught to them whether or not they're angry or not, you know, just like what's what's up? And it starts talking to them in French instead. And it turns out that it's not angry at all. It was just having trouble communicating previously in English. The line I'm sorry, but my English file seemed to be offline. I'm sorry for being so rude earlier. I had trouble thinking right apologize to the young woman for me please. And this log ends on something that I find to be particularly funny and probably saved me from downvoting the article. It's SCP-4951 entity, not hostile merely French. Now that is a perfect line to end your article on. Now if we condense this down, we removed some of these testing logs and we just went into the interview logs and covered this thing, this actual thing here and probably altered the description a little bit and probably not worry about the insurance thing at all. That's a distraction from what is essentially a fairly interesting character that you're starting to build here. So if you were to do that, take out the insurance parts, take out some of the component logs and dive into your article's interview logs, I think this article would probably be doing much, much better. Now I say this because the fourth log is yet another interview log, but it tries to tie everything together in one neat bow and this is an example of basically taking away from your article by adding more to it. This article is done, the line entity is not angry merely French is a great ending, everyone wants to make it go a little bit longer. It's a very, very common issue, I've done it before myself, I'll probably do it again when you get to an ending and you have a really nice ending but you want to add in extra lines. Sometimes it's just one sentence extra. And it's a whole interview log, but this is the problem here because this article includes that whole insurance thing so you have to tie it all in and that's done here because you actually get the guy, they finally get the guy a translator and the conversation commences. Of course, four times five one does the little ending monologue thing and this is inherently a problem, but it's required for the way this is set up. He spends, I don't know, two or three, no, one, two, three, four, five, about six paragraphs here talking to the researcher about basically telling them the plot of the story because it didn't come across already and it needs to be tied up. And in fact, it like reiterates stuff that you already know, like kept myself for a while after that but eventually I wound up storing bits of my thought processes wherever I happened to be when they came up, a train of thought in a desktop in Oregon here, a little bit of calculus knowledge in a bingalees computer mainframe here. This is essentially an as you know to the to the SCP researcher because researcher already knows this stuff. And then of course, what's this insurance thing? And then he talks about it as the matter of he's basically predicting anomalies. This is another thing that hasn't I haven't really talked about because it wasn't particularly interesting. But essentially, he's using the corporation to predict anomalies and then offer insurance to people who are going to be affected by those anomalies, which I got to say is not a great idea for a company because it's just going to go bankrupt. Like insurance companies work when no one has to make a claim. This guy sells insurance policies that actually have to pay out like 70% of the time. But like that plot hole is sort of tied up by the idea that he's just creating the company so that the foundation buys them and gives him money. Essentially this article is about twice as long as it needs to be. You could get the merely French thing done in one interview log if you really wanted to. You don't need the final interview log if you can remove the insurance policy thing, which doesn't really add to your narrative. And finally, there's one more thing about this that I think really does a disservice to the story that's trying to tell. Now I've read the tale that actually precedes this. This character existed before the SCP. There's a tale linked in the final log. And it's actually not necessarily required reading, but it makes the article significantly better if you have already read that article. But any time, and this is going to come up because a lot of new writers think this way. What if I do an SCP and then I write a tale based on that SCP? Well, here's the problem, and then this is even more to that point because this is an SCP based on a tale character. When you do that, and the article doesn't stand on its own, which I don't think this fully does, it almost does. It kind of does. Enough that it's surviving on the site, but not fully, not 100%. It's not standing completely on its own. You kind of got to read the previous article to really get a feel for the character that's being described here. But when you do that, you're essentially narrowing down your voter base. And on the SCP Wiki, this is important if you want something to be highly rated. And if you're okay with something just surviving, then fine. Build on these things. This comes up with Tales series, too. And you'll see it more often than not. It's not always true. It's not a universal rule. But generally, the first article in a Tales series is pretty highly rated. It's why people decide to continue writing in it because they're like, oh, the first one did well. I'll continue in that vein. But the next one does less well, and the next one does less well. And the next one does less well because when the second piece of a Tales series requires you to read the first one, only the people who have read the first one will actually read or enjoy the second one. And it will never be everyone. If you get plus 50 on a tale and then write a second part to it, your second tale is almost certainly going to be rated less than that. Probably significantly less than that. Maybe plus 30 or plus 40. The third tale will be rated less than that. The fourth tale will be rated less than that. You're always narrowing down your audience. And this is true of, say, using a particular meme or a joke or an inside joker or using any other article, no matter how popular. You are restricting your voter base to only the people who understand and have seen the previous work. Now, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It's not necessarily going to doom your work, but it will oftentimes limit how well it can do because it's all about eyes. People can't upvote something if they haven't read it yet. And if they don't finish it because they don't get it, they might not vote at all or worse, they might downvote it. So let's go over real quick what SCP-4951 does right and what it does wrong. Now, first of all, the special containment procedures are very well written. They do a very good job of communicating to the reader. There's a good use of images in this article in the sense that it creates kind of an idea in your head of what the SCP looks like. It introduces and focuses mostly, mostly, on a character that works for it. And it has a couple of very, very good lines that are quite memorable and that will have an impact on the reader after they're done reading it. But what does it do wrong? Well, the pacing is a little slow, especially in the middle. It doesn't quite stand on its own and relies a little bit too heavily on knowledge of a previous article. And finally it's got two completely separate story elements that are integrated together well, but they're still very recognizably two separate story elements and they're not seamlessly integrated, which is a serious problem. Anyway, that's it. I'd like to thank Gabriel Jade for letting me do this with his article. I'd like to thank you for subscribing. You've done that already, right? If you haven't, go down to the subscription button and hit it right now. And I'd also like to thank all of my patrons. Thank you very much for pledging. I appreciate it more than you can know. That kind of thing helps me continue to help writers on the wiki. And honestly, I didn't think I'd be able to keep doing this on my own, but I'm not on my own anymore. So if you'd like to join them, go to patreon.com. forward slash decimarian. And thank you very much for watching.


Welcome to this talk about the measuring reprogrammed technique 2.0, multi-round Fiat Shamir and more. My name is Jelle Donne and this is joint work with Serge Fier and Christian Mayans. Our work is about proving Fiat Shamir digital signatures and in general Fiat Shamir zero-knowledge proof systems secure against quantum attackers, whereby secure we mean secure in the quantum random oracle model. What we do is we extend an existing Q-ROM technique to a larger class of applications, notably multi-round Fiat Shamir signatures, of which MQD assesses an example, bullet proofs and sequential ore proofs. And finally we also show that the reductions that we get from applying these techniques are essentially tight. I'll dive right in by explaining the quantum random oracle model. Suppose we have some protocol that makes use of a public hash function, then proving security in the Q-ROM means that we model the public hash function as an external random oracle, to which all parties in a protocol have quantum query access. This means that the function cannot be computed locally, but all parties can query a superposition of inputs. This is a natural assumption, since the hash function is assumed to be public, anyone can build a quantum circuit to evaluate it, and once you have a quantum circuit to evaluate the function, then it's easy to evaluate on a superposition of inputs. But the problem is that in many classical random oracle model proofs, we want to observe the queries that the adversary makes. But as you probably know, observing a quantum state can cause it to collapse. And if the query state of the adversary collapses, this might as well collapse the internal state of the adversary, and then we can no longer predict anything about the adversary's output. In general, that is, because we present a theorem that deals with so-called multi-input reprogrammability of the Q-ROM. It says that if we are in this situation where we have an adversary making Q quantum queries to some random oracle H, and then outputs an array, so I used bold funds here for arrays of input values to the oracle, and some additional output Z, such that we know something about the probability of this output being such that X together with the hash values of X and Z satisfies some arbitrary predicate V. Then there exists a simulator that can sort of creep in between the adversary and the oracle, and choose n of the adversary's queries at random, measure them, and on the input that it finds, so in this example n is 2 and the simulator finds xi and xj, it can then reprogram the oracle to fresh random values theta i and theta j, and continue the run of the adversary such that its final output X bar Z bar will satisfy the same predicate V, but now with respect to these freshly programmed random values theta. And as you can see we can even compare the probabilities for specific choices of this array X0, but by summing the inequality we can also make more general statements. And of course as you can also see this all comes at multiplicative loss of order q to the power 2n, but indeed they are polynomially related for constant or logarithmic n. Right, another observation that we can make is that instead of talking to a real random oracle itself the simulator can also use quantum secure pseudo-random function in order if a is at least computationally bounded so that he will not notice the difference. Right, so that's the main technical result. It may also seem a bit abstract at this point, but we can actually use it and apply it to prove security of multi-round field shamir. So very quickly, multi-round field shamir takes some public coin interactive proof system by n and turns it into a non-interactive scheme. And we show that the advantage of the best adversary against a non-interactive scheme is at most order q to the power 2n times as big as the best adversary against the interactive scheme. And indeed this is tight because in our paper we provide an attack. First we provide an attack for typical three round schemes, so-called sigma particles, which indeed boosts the success of the best interactive adversary by a factor q2, q squared, showing that for n equals 1 this loss is optimal. And then we extend the attack to a somewhat artificial multi-round scheme and we get almost the same boost except for this factor n to the power minus 2n. But since we're usually considering n to be constant, that means that asymptotically q to the power 2n is optimal as well. Okay, for the rest of the talk I'll give you a bit more detail about how the fiat shamir transformation works, how the original result is applied to prove it secure and then we'll come to the motivation for this new work, namely multi-round fiat shamir and I'll discuss what we need to prove that secure. Then I'll give you the proof idea for this main result that we have and I'll finish off by talking about yet another application in the sequential or proofs. Right, so suppose that we have this three round identification scheme where some proofer can prove its identity by sending a commitment to a verifier and then upon receiving a challenge, a random, this must be a uniformly random challenge, uses its knowledge of some secret key to compute a response and then the verifier who of course knows the public key of this proofer computes some predicates on the messages to verify that indeed this proofer must have known the secret key. Now, since this is an interactive protocol, we could ask if we could make it non-interactive and fiat shamir transformation says that we may do so by introducing this public hash function h and then let the proofer, instead of waiting for a random challenge, compute a challenge himself simply by hashing the public key in the commitment. Then it only needs to send the commitment and the response since the verifier on his side also knows how to evaluate h so it can recompute this challenge and verify again that the response is correct with respect to this particular commitment and this particular challenge. Additionally, the proofer could send the message along with this commitment and response as well as include it in the hash. Including it in the hash ensures the integrity of the message which combined with the proof of identity makes for a digital signature. So this is the idea of fiat shamir signatures. Well, to prove this construction secure in the Q-ROM, Don Ferremais and Schaffner in 2019 presented the measure and reprogram technique which is basically the same as the multi-input version which I already presented to you except that now the output of the S-adversary is just this single hash input X along with C and the simulator now chooses just one of the adversaries queries at random, measures it, reprograms the oracle on this input to a fresh random value theta. And then we again get the guarantee that some predicate V holds now with respect to theta up to a Q squared loss and also here we have an additive error term but the theorem has the promise that even when summing over all possible instances of X not the error term remains negligible so we don't have to worry about it. Okay, now I'll finally show you how to apply this tool in a reduction for the plain fiat shamir transformation. What we want to do in the reduction is turn a proofer against the non-interactive fiat shamir scheme into a proofer for the interactive scheme to show that both are approximately equally hard to break. Well, the pattern can be matched as follows. We know that the adversary will output a public key, a commitment and a response. So the public key and a commitment take the role of X and the response takes the role of C. Which means that we can start up an interactive protocol by running the adversary as a subroutine and just wait until the particular query comes up that we have chosen randomly to measure. Once we've measured it we have a public key and a commitment. So we can send that to the interactive verifier. The challenge that we get in return we program into the oracle and feed it back to the adversary. And now we just have to wait for the adversary to finish and we get a response which we then forward back to the verifier and now of course with this inequality at hand we know that the probability that this response is correct with respect to this challenge which is represented here by Theta is approximately the same up to this Q squared loss as the probability that the original adversary can break the non-interactive Viad Shamir scheme. So that's the reduction. But as I said this is only a plain Viad Shamir for three round schemes. The main topic of the current work is about multi-round Viad Shamir. And indeed there exist many 2N plus 1 round public coin interactive proof systems for constant but also logarithmic N. Where we can again remove the interaction in a Viad Shamir heuristic way. It looks like this. We have an interactive scheme consisting of many rounds. And just as before all these uniformly random challenges can be replaced by outputs of some public hash function which the verifier can compute on its own. So that the proofer only needs to send the N different commitments and a final response. And that's enough for the verifier to check the verification predicate. But now of course in the reduction we need to extract all of these commitments all of these hash inputs in order to reprogram the oracle value to the challenges that we get from the interactive verifier. Now to do that obviously what we need is a measure and reprogram technique but now one that can handle multiple measurements. Well of course that is exactly the theorem that I already presented to you at the beginning of this talk. But let's for a moment assume that we don't yet know how to relate the left hand side to the right hand side scenario. How would we go about proving this inequality starting just from the single input measure and reprogram tool? Well what we do is starting from this multi-input adversary. We simply rewrite its output this array consisting of axes. We rewrite it as just x1 with some z prime where now we sort of put all the other x values x2 up to xn inside z prime and it also contains the original additional output c. So we really didn't do anything except just some formal trick rewriting. But now the output has exactly the form to which we can apply the single input result. Namely we get the existence of a simulator that picks one of a's queries at random, measures it, finds x1 and reprograms the oracle at x1 to theta1 such that now the predicate holds with respect to theta1 instead of h of x1. And note that here we made the choice to let s talk to the real random oracle instead of letting it use absolute random function. And the reason for this is that we can now consider a and s together as yet another algorithm which just has this particular output x1 c prime which we can again rewrite such that now x2 is the prominent hash input and z double prime has all the other axes and the original c. So that of course as you can guess we can apply the single input result again to now measure x2 and continuing for n times we will eventually get an algorithm with outputs x1 up to xn and z such that the predicate v checks out with respect to theta1 up to thetan. But what is now the loss factor that we get from this inductive application? Well from the first application we get a q-squared loss as well as this additive error term and then in the second application we're up to q to the fourth and we have two error terms. So continuing the pattern we indeed get this promised q to the power 2n with applicative loss and a sum of n error terms. And if you remember we had the promise that for each i summing over all possible instances xi not this error term remains negligible. So surely summing over n of them keeping in mind that in applications n is constant or logarithmic the whole sum will remain negligible. But the problem is that this is not what we need. If we have a careful look at the inequality down here we see that this is for one particular choice of that array x not. So for one choice of combinations x1 up to xn and if we sum over all possible arrays we sum over many more values than just each of the xis summed independently. So we can no longer control the size of this combined error that we have here. And this proved to need to be a substantial barrier to completing the proof. So what we had to do was go back to the original single input result and you'll now see why we call it the measure and reprogram technique 2.0. Because what we did is we improved the original single input result. We gave a different proof that doesn't have the need for this negligible error term which makes the statement cleaner and well for single input applications we get a negligible quantitative improvement. But most importantly we lose the error terms in the multi-input case and we get the result that we wanted. Now one small issue that I have to mention is well if we now want to apply this multi-input reprogramming results to multi-round via Chamiere. There's one more thing that we need to take care of. As you can see this inductive application of the single input result does not give us any guarantee on the order of the hash inputs that we extract. Here in this example x2 is extracted before x3 but also before x1. And in the reduction that we want to perform the interactive verifier expects these commitments in a particular order. We cannot just send it com2 first and com1 only at some later point. So somehow we need to ensure that we extract the commitments in the right order. The way to do that is simply to include the previous challenge in the hash for the next challenge which would mean in this example that before the adversary could even query x2 it needs to know the value of theta1 since it will be a part of x2. So that enforces the adversary to query all the hash inputs in the correct order. This is not our contribution, this is folklore knowledge also for classical multi-round via Chamiere but I just wanted to mention it to complete the analysis. Okay, so finally a few words about another application of our new technique namely sequential or proofs. This is something introduced by Liu Wei in 1 in 2004 and it's via Chamiere with a twist which allows a proofer to prove the truth of at least one of two statements x1, x2 without revealing which one. So it's a proof of the disjunction really. And how does it work? We start from a simple three-round sigma protocol and we use a hash function to turn it into a non-interactive scheme but now the challenges are computed over cross. The proofer has to provide x1, x1, x2, x2 and then uses h of x2 in order to compute the response that will be used to prove the truth of statement x1 and vice versa it uses h of x1 to compute the response that will be verified to determine the truth of statement x2. Now if we look carefully we see that only for this statement corresponding to the commitment that it's the first out of the two that gets squared to h only for this statement the proofer needs to actually know a witness in order to compute a valid response. Why is this so? Well let's have a look. Suppose for now that com1 is the commitment that gets squared first then before having anything to do with com2 the proofer already knows h of com1 in other words knows the challenge that it will need to compute a response to but by the honest verifier zero-knowledge property knowing the challenge before knowing the commitment allows one to compute the fake proof so to find some com2 and response to such that this predicate is satisfied for x2 even without knowing a witness for x2 and then if com2 has been determined by this fake proof then the proofer can query it to h to find the challenge which now using a witness for x1 it can compute a valid response so that also the other predicate is satisfied. So the security reduction works similarly we want to use a non-interactive adversary to convince one of the two verifiers or the verifier on one of the two statements but note that in order to do so we have to extract both com1 and com2 from this non-interactive adversary namely we have to extract com1 because this is the commitment that we are going to submit to the verifier remember we're assuming that x1 is the statement that is actually true so com1 is the one that we're going to submit to the verifier but we also need to extract com2 because com2 is the input to the random oracle on which we need to reprogram in order to inject the challenge that we get from this verifier so that the response computed by the non-interactive adversary will be valid with respect to com1 and this challenge that we reprogram to so indeed using the multi-input measuring reprogrammed technique we can now for the first time provide a Q-ROM reduction for this sequential ORC proof that concludes the talk thank you for listening


What's up everybody? It's Jason here for Jaspy's CaseBrakes.com. We just sold out a filler here that gives away five spots in the hip raid dual caser with this 2022 capsules MLB one pack break number 75 guys. And again we do the break first. Randomize customer names team should be the hits out then at the end we'll randomize only the customer names. Top five get into the dual caser guys which is a $240 spot. Trying to get in for only 41 bucks guys good luck. Do the break first. Five hundred two seven times. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Chris, down to Stephen Kendrick. Two, Tigers down to the properties. Again guys no trading stick to what you got. Quickly let you see your teams there. Do the pack break really quick. Nice little Bobby Wood Jr. there. Roman Gonzalez, Gavin Lux, Crawford, and Thomas Zabuki. Honor grad to 25 for the New York Mets. Going to Matt L. There we go. Rose is going to Jay. Very nice. Now let's switch scenes and let's do the main reason why you guys bought in guys. Good luck everybody. Here we go. Dice roll to six in a four. Ten times. Top five are in. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, and tenth and final time guys six and four. Boom. Boom. David you're in. David, Jimmy, Luis, and Kev. Congratulations guys. Boom. Top five are in. And again guys you guys are in the mixer. No we're not the mixer but the dual case are there guys. After ten times top five. Unfortunately the rest of you guys are not in guys. Thanks for giving it a shot. Like I said we only need to do five more straight up squats guys and then just the filler that we need to do and then we can break this guys. So appreciate it. Jasper'scasebreaks.com.


My name is Sam Daglin, and I'm the author of the Ignite Self-Love, Narcissism Revisited. My favorite Narcissism YouTube channel is Spartan Life Coach. Richard Granham is witty, is smart, is funny, is entertaining. But above all, he knows what he's talking about, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of self-styled experts with and without academic degrees. Richard actually talks sense. He does his research, and I enjoy his channel greatly. So, a recent video he has made about a week ago dealt with a topic called Projective Identification. I have met Richard in London two or three weeks ago. We were discussing the joint seminar at the end of September in London, and the issue of Projective Identification came up in the conversation. Richard is as charismatic and as sensitive as I had imagined him to be based on his videos. And so, the topic of Projective Identification was of great personal interest to him. So, I thought I would enlarge upon it, thought out a library on these pretty complex psychological defense mechanisms. Well, let's start with the Narcissist's false self. The Narcissist's false self, as you all know by now, is grandiose. The Narcissist seeks to maintain his inflated fantasy of himself. The Narcissist denies, slices and splits off he evacuates or projects onto other people. Emotions, cognitions, thoughts, traits, impulses, behaviors and qualities that contradict his false self, contravene his inflated grandiose sense of himself. In the idealization and evaluation phases, the Narcissist also attributes to his sources of primary or secondary Narcissistic supply, ideal and positive or negative traits and behaviors, some of which he may actually possess. So, this is very complex. Let's try to break it down into steps and stages and into topics and subtopics. As I said, the Narcissist has an inflated sense of himself. But to maintain this inflated sense of himself, the Narcissist must ignore or deny certain emotions. He must ignore or deny certain thoughts. He must ignore or deny certain traits, certain impulses, certain behaviors, certain qualities, which contradict this self-perception as brilliant, as godlike, as perfect, as omnipotent, as omniscient. It's hard to maintain this concoction, this piece of fiction, this narrative that is called the false self. So what the Narcissist does, he takes all these things that contradict his grandiose self and he throws them out. He projects them onto other people. He says, it's not me. It's not I. I'm not weak.  I'm not out of control. It's not me. It's you. It's other people. In the idealization and evaluation phases, the Narcissist projects onto other people positive traits when he idealizes them or negative traits when he devalues them. So when he idealizes you, he would say that you're intelligent.  In the idealization stage, he would project positive ideal thoughts, positive ideal behaviors, positive ideal impulses. Everything would be positive and ideal. And in the negative phase, in the devaluation phase, he would project onto you the exact opposite. Negative things, demeaning things, derating things, humiliating things. Additionally, with the Narcissist, there's a further complication. The Narcissist feels omnipresent, ubiquitous, all-pervasive. The Narcissist believes that he is the prime mover and shaker. He believes that he is the cause of all things. He believes that he is at the core, he is the engine, he is the be-all and end-all. The Narcissist is also convinced that everyone is exactly like him when it comes to negative emotions and motivations. So for the Narcissist to project is pretty easy because he believes that everyone is like him.  If they are all like him, then it's easy to project onto them these negative emotions, negative traits, negative thoughts, negative impulses, urges, desires and so on and so forth. The constant and facile projection of the Narcissist's own traits, own fears, behavior patterns, beliefs and plans onto others, this comes to the Narcissist naturally. The Narcissist is firmly convinced that he is the generator and regulator of other people's emotions, that they depend on him for their well-being, that without him their lives would crumble into great mediocrity. He regards himself as the most important component in the life of his nearest and nearest. So this confidence, this combination means that when the Narcissist projects onto other people, he first believes that they are like him and so the projection is justified and correct, it conforms to reality, this is really how they are. And secondly, he believes that by projecting, he is unconsciously convinced that by projecting, he is actually doing them a favor. He is jaunting them, he is administering tough love, he is motivating them, he is moving them, he is shaking them, he is structuring them and forming their lives, he is injecting content and interest. Projection is a tool that the Narcissist uses not only to penetrate other people, not only to get rid of inner processes, thoughts, impulses and so on that he cannot live with, but it's also a control instrument. It's also a way for the Narcissist to control people around him, to avoid painful contradictions with reality or cognitive dissonances and also to ameliorate his raging abandonment and separation anxiety. The Narcissist aims to micromanage and control his human environment by substituting it or by merging and fusing with it. In this sense, Narcissists are exactly like co-dependents, they both do this. The Narcissist's nearest and dearest are reduced to mere representations, avatars, extensions of himself, internal objects and this is where projective identification comes in, where it comes into play. You remember we were discussing projection.  I don't want to think of myself as weak, so I project it. You are weak. I don't want to think of myself as angry, it's not cool. I'm not angry, you are angry. I don't want to think of myself as unfaithful, so I would suspect you of cheating on me, being disloyal. So it's projection. This is simple. It consists of the attribution of the Narcissist's own psychological makeup, his own urges, his own desires and processes, inner processes to other people. That's easy to understand. But projective identification also involves forcing the target of the projection to conform to the contents of the projection, forcing someone to actually become someone else, forcing someone to behave in ways prescribed by the Narcissist. This is called introjective identification. The Narcissist does projective identification, the recipient of the projective identification undergoes a process called introjective identification, where he becomes what the Narcissist wants him to be. In the idealization phase, the Narcissist cajoles, coerces, extorts and incentivizes his chosen source of supply to transform himself into the kind of person that the Narcissist projects. He wants her to be intelligent, he wants her to be strong, for example, in the idealization phase. Similarly in the devaluation phase, the target is manipulated to assume, to adopt and to exhibit the Narcissist's shortcomings, the Narcissist's unmanageable, chaotic and dysregulated emotions and behaviors.  It's like body snatching, soul snatching. The Narcissist not only projects but he uses the projection to mold the other person, to reconstruct the other person, to break the other person apart and put him back together differently in a way that will conform to the Narcissist's projected content. The Narcissist rejects his rage, envy, contempt, abusive conduct, shame and so on and so forth. He rejects these things. He refuses to own them because they challenge his self-deception, his false self. They challenge his ability to regulate his labile sense of self-worth. So instead what he does, he takes these negative emotions, negative thoughts, negative urges, negative impulses and he farms them out. He outsources them to other people around him. But at the same time, he pressures them to play act these roles in the screenplay of his life. He forces them to affirm what he knows about the world and what he knows about himself. He, in other words, uses them to buttress his comfort zone, his pathological Narcissistic space. They become convenient props, containers of unwanted bits of the Narcissist persona and psyche.  Still, it is important to realize that the material that is cast off in the process of projected magnification remains a part of the Narcissist. Why is that? If the Narcissist cannot own these things, if he rejects them, if he throws them out, casts them off, why would they remain a part of it? If he forces other people to appropriate these things and to become these things, why would they still be a part of him? Well, that's because the people that this content is projected on, on to, these people are an integral part of the Narcissist. For the Narcissist, there are no others.  Other so-called people are extensions of himself. They are appendages, they are mere inner spectres, they are apparitions, avatars, representations, inner objects, anything, but not separate autonomous human beings. With the Narcissist, projective and projective identification do not work, because in his mental world there are no others. There is no reality out there. It's all in his mind. It's all part of a mega theater play that is taking place on the stage of his mind. Narcissist in this respect is a solipsist and his solipsistic worldview prevents him from successfully getting rid of what bothers him the most, his imperfection. He cannot take his imperfections and offload them onto other people, because there are no other people. There's only the Narcissist. So with the Narcissist, projective and projective identification are actually reallocation from one part of his psychology to another part, from his core base, from his false self, onto the representations of other people inside him. While normal people project outside to other people, while normal people may use projective identification with outsiders, outside themselves, Narcissist uses projection and projective identification to manipulate inner objects, to force inner constructs, inner representations, inner avatars to behave in certain ways. In other words, with the Narcissist, projection and projective identification are internal, 100% internal processes which have to do with the Narcissist's economy of mind with his energy economy. This is good news, because it means therapists can use projection and projective identification to manipulate the inner structures of the Narcissist's soul to realign the Narcissistic landscape. We'll talk about it in some later video when I expound on a new treatment modality of developing called cold therapy. But this is only one aspect of the pathology. The second aspect is malignant cynicism. The healthy modicum of doubt and caution is, well, healthy. But the Narcissist is addicted, addicted to excess doses of both doubt and caution. To the Narcissist, all people are Narcissists. Others are simply hypocritical when they pretend to be normal, non-Narcissists. When people say I'm not a Narcissist, they are simply lying.  They are weak. They fear society's reactions, so they adhere to its idics and behavioural moral codes and moralism. But in reality, everyone is a Narcissist. Just there are strong Narcissists, self-assured Narcissists, who are not afraid to admit that they are Narcissists, and there are craven cowardly Narcissists, who are too afraid of their own shadow and what society and the neighbors might say and they don't admit that they are Narcissists. But everyone is a Narcissist. Narcissist magically feels strong, immune to punishment and invincible. He is able to express his true nature fearlessly and openly. So, if everyone is a Narcissist, when the Narcissist projects, he cannot see that he is projecting. Because if everyone is like him, his projection is merely acknowledging reality. In the Narcissist world, there is no such thing as external projection, projecting unto others, not only because there are no others, not only because all others are inside him, not only because all others are extension, but because all others are identical to him. Identical to him, as far as motivation and so on.  But when it comes to base emotions, base drives and impulses and urges and so on, everyone is the same. So, the Narcissist can never project. Projection is about real psychological defense mechanism of projection. It's about misidentifying other people's traits, qualities and behaviors. But if they are the same, they are the same like the Narcissists. There can be no misidentification. Whatever the Narcissist says about other people must be true because they are all one and the same. This is the Narcissist's complex inner landscape. The Narcissist does not inhabit an outer landscape. There is no world, there is no reality. There are no others. It's a complex intricate interplay inside the Narcissist torch and so on. And projection and projective identification are the keys to healing Narcissism. As I said, and as I promised, I'm putting the finishing touches to a new treatment modality, a new therapy. For Narcissists, and one of the key elements in this therapy is to use inner constructs and internal structures in the Narcissist's psychology to actually transform the Narcissist. Not necessarily to render him normal, but definitely to render him much happier and much more functional. But it's too early to talk about this. Leave something for the next videos. Warm regards to Richard Granon who sort of provoked me into this video. And if we do hold the joint seminar together in London, probably on the 24th and 25th of September, I would be delighted to see you there.