Hello, welcome to yet another session of our NPTEL on nonlinear and adaptive control. I am Srikanth Sakuma from Systems and Control IIT Bombay. So we are very into the seventh week of our course and we have this very nice and interesting background image of this satellite from SpaceX orbiting the Earth and we are well underway into learning how to design algorithms that will drive systems such as these. So what we were doing last time was that we had started discussing the back stepping approach for the unmatched parameter case. In this case, what we have is that the unknown parameter appears in the state where there is no control. And we actually started with the known parameter case. So in order to simplify the treatment, we just had stabilization as the objective that is we just want both states to go to zero. But as we had stated last time, this doesn't really change anything if you want the states to in fact track a reference trajectory. So we started off with the known parameter case as always and what we did first was that in the known parameter case, so I am sorry let me go back here, in the known parameter case we of course constructed these two Lyapunov candidate functions for the first state and the second state where X2 desired is of course the desired state corresponding to the first one. So basically after we did this, we took a derivative and we are able to show that v2.looks something like this and for the known case of course, we can prescribe this kind of a law. We can prescribe this kind of a law and in fact we also computed the derivative and that is we compute the derivative of X2 desired and the control expression looks something like this. We can see that because of X1 dot, there is a theta in the control expression also. But since theta is known, we are treating the known case, so this is not a problem, we implement this control and we can do our Lyapunov analysis with v equal to v1 plus v2 and then we are left with once we apply the control and we get to somehow this stage, we are actually left with two nice negative quadratic terms and one mixture and then we use the standard sum of squares method which I hope by now we have all understood very well to get to this expression here. So from inequality here, we get to an inequality here and we can then claim that v dot is negative definite if k1 and k2 are greater than half. So with this sort of analysis of course we can use a standard Lyapunov theorem to claim that all the states are stable at the origin and of course reaching the origin asymptotically. So that is global uniform asymptotic stability and in fact in this kind of a specific situation global exponential stability, all right, great. So we of course with this you can prove that the modified states that is the states of the back stepping which is x1 goes to 0 and x2 goes to x2 desired and with the expression of x2 desired and the assumption that f0 is 0 which we already said that was a reasonable assumption, you get that x2 also goes to 0 because x2 desired also goes to 0, right, great. Now when we went to the unknown case, this sort of expression of the control created a problem right because there is a theta, there is a theta and so on and so forth. So this is not, the entire approach is not viable anymore. So we have to start with a different approach and what was that? We in fact had to specify the desired x2 with a theta hat, right, there is still certainty equivalence but starting with the pseudo control itself. So x2 was a pseudo control and at the pseudo control level itself I have to use an estimate right because that is where the unknown parameter in fact appears, right. And so if x2 were in fact x2 desired then you have this sort of a x1 dot equation right with theta tilde being the parameter error, great. So now we of course proposed this kind of a Lyapunov function for the first state, right. So the first state itself contains the theta tilde squared and we do an analysis, this is again assuming that x2 is exactly equal to x2 desired, alright. So we already, this should be clear, assuming x2 is identical to x2 desired. So this is of course a big assumption right, this is just a pseudo control, not the real control. But of course everything goes through because you know we choose a theta tilde, theta hat dot, right, which sort of cancels this term so that's what we do. And then we get a v1 dot which is negative semi definite, right. So on the other hand in the known case this was actually negative definite, right. So here we already have an unknown parameter therefore the derivative is v1 dot is negative semi definite, although the expression is again the same, all assuming that this pseudo control is in fact the real control. Then we go to the second state, right, where v2 is the same, we have not changed v2. So v1 changes but v2 has not changed yet, alright, yet, I would use the word yet. We get v2 dot to be the same and the control we want to prescribe same. So we want to choose but then what happens, right, we compute the expression, right. So now the expression is slightly different of course because x2 desired contains theta hat and not theta itself, right. So let's look at x2 desired dot, right. So this expression is basically theta hat dot fx1, right, and so basically it is minus k1x1 minus theta hat fx1, so it is just the derivative of minus k1x1 which is minus k1x2 and derivative of theta hat fx1 using the product rule, right. So that's what we get two terms, right, derivative of the first with respect to the first term and then the derivative with respect to the second term. Now when we take the derivative with respect to the second term you again get an x1 dot, alright. We already had an x1 dot here and we get an x1 dot here too, right. And that's what we clubbed. This and this gets clubbed here, right. This and this term gets clubbed to give me this term here, right. And this is of course this term, alright. So these are the two distinct terms. Now it's easy to see that this is of course an implementable term, no problem. But then x1 dot contains the unknown again, yeah. So this is again implementable. But the x1 dot, which is this guy, contains the unknown theta, okay. So now this control is still not implementable, right. So what we choose as control U, which is the actual control, is not implementable. So of course we want to replace it with C estimate. Now we cannot replace it with a theta hat, okay. I encourage you to do this, like try this erroneous step of trying to replace this with theta hat itself and then carrying out a Lyapunov analysis. How would you carry out a Lyapunov analysis? You would simply, I would say, so what I want to say is try with theta hat in U here, okay. And V equals V1 plus V2. So and because of course you remember that V already contains, right already contains the theta, V1 already contains the theta tilde term, right. So what is the problem? The problem that occurs is that you already chosen a theta hat dot, right.  So there's no more terms remaining to be used to cancel this error, okay. So how do we resolve this issue? That's where we come to in lecture, in today's lecture, which is lecture 7.4. I know this was a rather longish introduction into the previous lecture but since this is slightly more involved, I wanted to sort of repeat what we did, okay. So the steps are simple, they may be confusing for you, right, in the beginning but if you revise it, it's actually simple steps, just a little bit more bookkeeping, all right. All we're doing is a little bit more careful bookkeeping here, okay. So let's look at this. So x to the z dot contains the, you know, theta, of course we cannot implement this. So we replace theta with a new estimate now, yeah, because like I said, the old estimate and please feel free to try, in fact, I encourage you to try the old estimate, you will always be left with one term which in theta tilde which you cannot cancel anymore, right, because you are left with no more terms from the v1 dot, right, that we can be used to cancel because you already chose a theta hat dot. So we use a new estimate mu, so mu hat. So the new estimate mu hat replaces the theta, okay. And of course, you know, when you basically try to write it in terms of the earlier x to the z, so we call it the x to the hat, x to the z hat dot, right. If you replace it in terms of the earlier x to the z, this becomes x to the z dot plus this mu tilde times this term, right. So it's just because there was a theta here, right. So there was a theta here, instead of the theta we put in the mu hat and mu tilde is defined as theta minus mu hat, right. So this is simply that term. So this term multiplied by this, the mu tilde, okay. So this was the earlier x to the z hat dot, right. So now we choose a different v2, right, instead of choosing it as just this term, we add a, was a term corresponding to the parameter error, right. So for the same parameter, right, what do we want to do? We are creating another Lyapunov candidate function, okay. So for this special unknown case situation, we are creating a different Lyapunov function, okay, creating a different Lyapunov function. Now, this was already there, nothing new here, the new term is here. Why? Because we introduce a new estimate for the same parameter theta, okay. So this is what is mentioned here, 1 over 2 sigma, mu tilde square in v2 corresponds to the overestimation term, all right. So this is known as overestimation, right, so, or overparameterization. So we also use the term overparameterization, okay. What does it mean? It means that I use the multiple estimates for the same parameter, all right. So this is called overparameterization. So now we carefully do this analysis, okay, let's carefully do this analysis. Let's look at v as v1 plus v2 and compute the v dot, right. Now remember, earlier v1 dot was computed assuming that x2 is in fact equal to x2, right. Now we can't do that. So I am going to write what is x1 dot, x1 dot is x2 plus theta fx1 and x2 dot is u, right. And what did we choose as u? u was, let's see, u is this, but u is not exactly this guy, u is not this guy, right, u is in fact x2 hat desired dot, right. So basically, let me carefully write all the terms here so that we have everything at our disposal, so we have everything at our disposal. So we have x2 desired as equal to minus k1 x1 minus theta hat fx1 and we have u is equal to x2 desired hat dot minus k2 x2 minus x2 desired minus k2 x2 minus x2 desired.  So all these things, right, we have several ingredients here. So we have several ingredients here, I have copied all of them, right. So u is in terms of the x2 hat desired dot and x2 hat desired dot is in terms of the x2 desired dot, so this is minus k2 x2 minus x2 desired, right. So this x2 hat desired is this guy and minus k2 x2 minus x2 desired is this guy, okay, and x2 desired itself is this. So now I take the derivatives diligently, complete the analysis. So v1 dot has x1 x1 dot which is x1 x2 and this term which is, okay, I forgot to write one which is I believe the theta hat dot which is gamma x1 fx1. So theta or theta hat dot or theta hat dot equals minus theta tilde dot equals gamma x1 fx1. So gamma x1 fx1, all right, great. So this is what we have, okay. So v1 dot is x1 x1 dot which is x1 x2 and this term gives me theta tilde, theta tilde dot by gamma which is theta tilde times x1 fx1, right. So this is actually theta tilde times f1 x1 fx1, this is what I get from v1 dot, okay. Let's see, I'm trying to wonder, wait a second. This is theta, so I believe this term gives me, let me write this out. This term gives me in v dot theta tilde, theta tilde dot divided by gamma and I think we are fine here. So it's just theta, theta tilde dot is minus theta x1 fx1 minus theta tilde. So this should be equal to minus theta tilde x1 fx1, okay. Let's see what's there in the next step. x1 x1 dot actually gives me x1 x2 plus x1 theta fx1, this is correct and this term gives me, yeah, so this is where there is a fault, this should be not, should not be there. Minus theta tilde, okay, okay, I'm sorry. This actually cancels out, okay, so these two terms actually cancel out, all right, this is fine, this is absolutely okay, so it's written in a more complicated way than I expected. All right, so the first two terms are just x1 x1 dot and this term is theta tilde, theta tilde dot. This term is of course from the second term x2 minus x2 divided by u minus x2 dot from here and the last term is this, okay, so this is the only piece that we have not selected yet, okay, so this is absolutely okay. So now if I go to the next step, right, and of course I already got the expression for the u, which is in terms of x2 hat dot, x2 d hat dot and that's this entire expression, right, so what you get is first what I do is I write x2 in terms of the x2 design, right, so if I write x2 in terms of the x2 design, what do I get? Sorry, x, yeah, not x2 in terms of the x2 design, but in terms of the error, right, so basically what I will do is I will write this guy x1 x2, right, as x1 x2 minus x2 design plus x1 x2 design, all right, so this is just x1 x2, okay, and this is just from x1 theta of x1, just the dynamics and this is again from the update law, okay, and this term now minus k2 x2 minus x2 design is because of this term, so now everything else is from this term, right, so all of this, so this term gives me this term, all right, then let me see if I can change colors, then this term gives me this term, all right, and this term will cancel out, right, because there's an x2 d dot, so that term, the first term in fact cancels out, so this is cancels, okay, so this term in fact cancels out, right, so that's it, and then I'm left with this guy which is yet to be chosen, right, which is yet to be chosen, right, so this is just, this is coming from this with just x2 minus x2 design multiplied, this is coming from this with just x2 minus x2 design multiplied and because of the Lyapunov function derivatives, right, now if I look here, right, if I look at this x1 times x2 desired, right, okay, so what is x1 times x2 desired, and so x2 desired is this, right, so x1 times x2 desired is, if I expand this term, it's minus k1 x1 squared plus x1 theta hat fx1, all right, x1 theta hat fx1, so I get a, from x1 x2 desired, I get a minus k1 x1 squared and this x1 theta hat fx1 cancels this term, right, because theta minus theta tilde is minus theta hat, all right, so I think this is fine, I hope the signs are okay, sorry, so this, yeah, that's what I'm wondering, this should be a negative, yeah, now this negative will cancel theta minus theta tilde x1 fx1 which is actually equal to theta hat fx1, so this is actually equal to theta hat fx1, so this cancels with this, all right, so you get this minus k1 x1 squared left from here, so this just leaves this much and that's it and then this is a nice mixed term, x1 and x2 minus x2 desired and then there is a nice negative quadratic term in this, if, yeah, if I choose my mu cap dot, right, as sigma times x2 minus x2 desired fx1 k1 plus theta del f del x1, okay, so if I make this choice, this term and this term cancel out, right, so all I'm left with is this nice negative term here, nice negative term here from this thing and then this mixed term here because everything else just cancels out, okay, and then what, right, so that's what is sort of written here, you see, this is the update law, sigma x2 minus x2 desired fx1 k1 plus theta cap del f del x1, so this is exactly what is left here, all right, as you would expect and from here to here, of course this is sum of squares, yeah, again we are already used to this I hope, so this term is simply less than equal to ix1 square plus half x2 minus x2 desired square, this is just using a, b is less than equal to a square plus b square, so this is the standard sum of squares, we do this again and again, so I hope you're used to it, so once you get to this, you know that if k1 and k2 are greater than half, you have this, you know, whatever, nice negative semi-definiteness, only negative semi-definiteness, of course, because now theta tilde and mu tilde are also states, so there are two more states, so obviously this is not negative definite, it's only negative semi-definite, but you know very well that I can use signal chasing and babala dilemma to prove that x1 and x2, in fact go to 0, sorry, we can prove that x1 goes to 0 and x2 goes to x2 desired, right, so let me, let me be very careful here, let's see, wait a second, we can prove x1 goes to 0, right, so not this yet and we can prove x2 goes to x2 desired, okay, and we can also prove x2 desired, x2 dot goes to x2 desired dot, so what we have is that x2 is this guy, so if x1 goes to 0 and if 0 is going to 0, so this is actually x2 desired, right, so if x1 is going to 0 as we have already, I apologize, give me a second, there is some misbehavior from the pen, right, so we already have x1 going to 0 directly from here by using signal chasing and babala dilemma and we have x2 going to x2 desired and the derivatives also converge, this is standard, right, so you have x1 going to 0, right, and we also have x2 going to x2 desired, now we look at x2 desired more carefully, so what happens to x2 desired, I know that as t goes to infinity x1 goes to 0 and further if I assume that if 0 is 0, like before a reasonable assumption, then I also have this term going to 0, right, and so I have the whole thing going to 0, all right, I have the whole thing going to 0, so this is fine, I believe you can also show also possible via another route, so you can show x1 goes to 0, x2 goes to x2 desired and I believe you can also show x1 dot goes to 0, right, and from here x1 dot is equal to x2 plus theta of x1, right, and if x1 is going to 0 and this is going to 0 because x1 is going to 0, then this also has to go to 0, okay, so this is another way of doing it, yeah, both are identical, doesn't matter, right, so in this case one of the caveats is that the function f is deliberately chosen to be a function of the first state only, if this doesn't happen doing stability analysis will be very difficult, yeah, and you can also see that you are saying that fx1 f of 0 is 0 and things like that, so if it was a function of both the states then then you have to talk about x2 also being 0 and things like that, so this is a rather complicated situation if you have function of both the states, this is again something that is more of a well, I mean, it will be a much more tougher exercise than research exercise and may or may not work out for all cases, all right, okay, excellent, so what did we see today? We have essentially seen how to complete the stability proof and in fact adaptive control design for this unmatched parameter case, this of course turned out to be way more involved, we had to do over parameterization, we had to introduce a second estimate and in the Lyapunov function also you notice that we have two more, two additional terms, one due to theta tilde, now that due to mu tilde, right, so this was an over parameterization and the analysis itself was a little bit more involved than before, yeah, but since the problem is also more involved, this is of course reasonable and you can see and also start to think that the ortega type construction that worked for the matched case, you cannot actually use in the unmatched case, yeah, so that you understand that the Lyapunov function now is significantly more complicated and more involved, yeah, so backstipping is the way that you will have to go for the more complicated cases, all right, excellent, so this is where we stop today and I see you again in the next session, thanks.


Stature privatized the electricity system in the UK and introduced the idea that privatization is a good thing for the people. The idea being that the market knows better how to reduce costs than the state. The first step was to say, how much are you paying for your electricity? You pay 50 quid per, I don't know how many kilowatt hours. We're going to cut it. We're not going to allow the price to go beyond what you're paying. And then we're going to privatize and we will allow competition to bring it down. If it brings it down, you gain, consumer. If they don't succeed, they are still capped at 50. So you've got nothing to lose. You only have things to gain. That was a very powerful argument. If you add to that the fact that they were giving away shares to the people, who then of course sold them to the oligarchs, it was impossible to stop privatization. Second phase was to say, but who am I as a politician to be deciding the cap of the maximum price? Why should politicians decide? Let the market do it. Instead of having ministers deciding the maximum price, we're going to simulate a market. If you don't have a market when it comes to electricity, why can't you have a market when it comes to electricity? If there were 30, 50 different cables, electrical cables coming into your home and you could choose which one you're going to take your electricity from, then it would be a market. There would be some kind of competition between different providers.  So this one, they simulate the market. And how do they do that? They say, okay, we're going to split electricity companies and have at least three parts. This will be power generation. So each power plant becomes a company or is owned by some company that may own more than one. And these companies compete with one another in the wholesale market to provide the system with a wholesale price. The second part is the network, the grid that belongs to another company. And then there is the part where electricity leaves the grid to go into your home. And that's where you create electricity providers who compete with one another in the market of buying the electricity from the grid, which has bought it from the producers and then selling it to consumers. You simulate competition between the producers. They produce the wholesale price and then you have providers who are competing with one another to allow competition to shrink the distance between the wholesale price and their retail price. That was phase two privatization. And this is what is now prevailing in the European Union. They copied the copyright phase two model. When you simulate a market, you need to have government imposed rules simply because you don't have a real market. You have a government pretending to simulate a market. When it comes to a proper auction and you've got people selling stuff, you would expect that the company or the person offering the lowest price wins, right? No. In this market, the company offering the highest price wins. And then the price is the same for everybody. As long as the sum of the electricity that they have provided is no more than a certain amount, which is what the market demands. It's madness. And then supposedly the providers compete with one another to reduce the retail price to that maximum wholesale price. Now, if this sounds complicated, it is because it was intended to be complicated. So the citizens of Europe do not understand that this is a scam against them even during the good times. Prove of that is that since privatization, the difference between the cost of producing an average kilowatt hour and the retail price has trouble. So don't believe anyone who tells you that the problem has nothing to do with the system. The problem is that the cost of production is going up. Yes, the cost of production is going up because the price of natural gas is going up. But that does not explain why the profit margins of the firms is getting larger. Are we clear on this? I spoke in the Greek parliament and I exposed a scam of the Greek government. We presented in parliament a proposal on how to shield consumers from skyrocketing prices. What we said was this. That because the price of electricity produced from natural gas is skyrocketing because the price of natural gas is skyrocketing. It's crazy, crazy mad that electricity coming out of solar panels, which costs nothing to produce once you have a solar panel, it is free. That the private company that is selling solar produced kilowatt hours should get for that kilowatt hour the same price that it would get had it produced it from the most expensive natural gas. It is mad, right? All you need to do is to eliminate these super profits. I mean, how did I understand that is a scam? Because they don't tell you put note 3.8. This is where the scam is. You've got to do some detective work, decipher it yourself. The first inkling we had that this is a scam is when it mentioned that the daily auction for the wholesale price continues. This stock exchange in which wholesale producers are competing with one another in an auction continue. Now, the human mind cannot wrap itself around that. If you have a maximum price that is imposed by government on every different power station, why do you need the auction? Isn't that the obvious question to us? I hear this. This is what they do. Remember, the price for every megawatt hour that the government imposed from hydro works was 85 euros. I looked at what the auction yielded. The price, it was 700 during this period, 700. The price cap was meant to be for those kilowatt hours produced by hydro works. It was meant to be 85. So this is hard work. The producer of that kilowatt hour or megawatt hour receives the 700 euros that has been determined by the auction in the Netherlands. But then they have to give back to the Greek state the difference between the 700 and the price cap of 112, which is 588. So they give it back to the government. Okay.  I mean, why do this? Why don't you just ask them to receive 112 instead of receiving 700 and then have to return the 568. So far, no scam. Stupidity. Just miracles. Here's where the scam comes. The government does not take this money in order to give it to consumers. No. The government takes this money to give it to the retail companies. Now, if you look at every market, almost in Europe, the same shareholder that owns the producer owns the retail company, got you. So it is as if I have a company that is producing electricity and I have a company that is a retail company. They let the pseudo auction to turn the price at 700. They force me to return to the state from my left pocket, which is my pocket as a producer, 588 euros to the government. And the government puts it in my right pocket. Now, is it any wonder that the consumer feels no relief? No. None. Zero. Sills. Then what the government does is, okay, to help you, dear consumer, I am going to borrow money, the government will borrow my, add it to the government budget to subsidize your electricity bill. In other words, to allow you to give the oligarch the money in my pocket that the government has taken from one pocket and put it in another pocket. Now, if this is not a scam, I do not know what the word scam means. This is the definition of a scam. Why are they doing this? Because complexity is in the interest of the oligarch. They are imposing a price cap. They are subsidizing the public. So the government is doing something. No. The government is doing nothing. The government are agents of the oligarchy. They are crooks and they are thieves. This is a clear cut case of destroying the capacity of the majority of Europeans to make ends meet in the interest of an oligarchy, combining two things. On the one hand, the market fundamentalism of Thatcher that creates the simulated market which has failed us with statism, the state borrowing, increasing public debt so that the state can subsidize the oligarch, but not the consumers. The only solution to this is the immediate abandonment of the market model, the closure of the auction house in the Netherlands. The first step before you do anything else, we need to have a proper price cap both at the wholesale level and at the retail level so that the price that people pay reflects average cost plus a small percentage, a little bit of profit for whoever is running the show. That's number one. That should be DM25 policy across Europe and market fundamentalism and the delusion of markets blow up markets. There can be no market when it comes to electricity because there's only one electricity cable coming out of your wall and there can be no market. When they try to create simulated market with one cable coming out of the wall, they are scumming society. Point number two, we need an energy union, a green energy union. We can no longer sustain this fallacy of the market which allows the German government to have its own plans about the green transition, the Greek government, its own plans. Nobody's investing in green hydrogen properly. Nobody's investing in solar panels and windmills that are actually owned by communities. They are doing everything for the oligarchs. The second plank of the DM25 policy I think should be a socialized green energy union incorporating within the system this network of green energy production and distribution with ownership rights at the municipal level, the regional level, overseen by citizen assemblies, by juries, randomly selected citizens and so on and the third thing that we must do and I know that that sounds controversial and sanctions on Russian energy. The only people benefit from the sanctions on Russian gas and oil are the Russian oligarchs and the European oligarchs. It is not helping Ukraine. It is not undermining Putin. It is enriching Putin and his oligarchs and the sanctions that are only in the interest of the united oligarchies of Russia, of Ukraine, of Germany, of Italy and of Greece.


Dark green leafy vegetables are packed with a brain antioxidant called lutein. And so increasing our greens intake could be an important public health strategy for reducing the risk of visual or cognitive impairment. Lutein is the dominant dietary pigment in the retina of the eye as well as the brain, and so not surprisingly that macular pigment, the concentration of lutein in the center of your eye called the macula, was found to be significantly correlated with levels in the brain, which may explain the link between how much of these greens nutrients you can see in the back of the eye and cognitive function. The neuro-protection is assumed to be because lutein is such a powerful antioxidant, but it also has anti-inflammatory properties. This relationship between lutein and another greens nutrient called zeaxanthin and visual and cognitive health throughout the lifespan is compelling, but that was based on observational studies where you observed that higher lutein levels in brain function seem to go together, but you don't know if it's cause and effect until you put it to the test. Could lutein and zeaxanthin be supplemented as part of a lifestyle intervention to both improve brain function and reduce the probability of slipping into dementia? The reason everyone's so excited about the possibility is because of the hopeful data from eye health studies that have convinced many ophthalmologists to start recommending people start increasing their lutein and zeaxanthin intake to prevent and treat macular degeneration, a leading cause of age-related vision loss. You don't have to take pills, though, adding as little as 60 grams of spinach a day for a month. That's like one-fifth of a 10-ounce package of frozen spinach can significantly boost macular pigment in most people. And it's not just good for treating diseased eyes or randomized placebo-controlled study found that these greens goodies can improve visual processing speed in young, healthy people. That's like when you're trying to hit a fastball and your body has to start reacting before you even consciously register it, with real-world benefits outside the major leagues, improving, for example, visual driving performance. OK, but what about cognition? A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of adults average age 73, given the equivalent of about a half cup of days of cooked kale, or a full cup of cooked spinach, and got significant improvements in cognitive function compared to those randomized to the placebo. Maven working young adults, too, average age 21. Daily supplementation with the same amount of lutein and zeaxanthin not only increased their macular pigment, but resulted in significant improvements in brain function, spatial memory, reasoning ability, and complex attention. After they ever tried putting whole foods to the test, it's hard to get Americans to eat greens every day, but not so hard to get them to eat guacamole. This study tested the effects of the intake of avocado on cognition in a six-month randomized controlled trial. What was the control? One avocado a day or a potato or a cup of chickpeas. And those in the avocado group had a significant improvement in cognitive function. But to the avocado board's chagrin, so did the tater and chickpea group. That's the problem with having healthy placebos. Maybe they should have used iceberg lettuce or something. What about the impact on cognition of those who really need it, Alzheimer's disease patients? Their vision got better, that's good, but no significant changes in cognitive function. Now it's possible that eating whole foods like dark green leafies might have worked better than just the pigments in pill form. Yes, oxidation and inflammation appear to be key to both Alzheimer's and macular degeneration, but neither disease seems particularly amenable to late-stage treatments. That's why prevention is the key. Reducing oxidation and inflammation in the earliest stages may be our most promising approach.


What are some of the key factors to consider when choosing a print-on-demand company? Product quality. If your product starts falling apart within one week, it will ruin your drop shipping storage reputation. Bad reviews and poor experiences are a thing. Shipping time and warehouses. Keep an eye out for the various shipping options that your POD supplier offers. Also best to look for a supplier with products in the same location as your target audience. This will help to increase shipping speed. Also important to look after shipping costs. If our suppliers' delivery costs are high, we won't be able to set a decent profit margin. Next up is pricing. And although quality and speed should be at the top of our list, if you're not cost effective in the way that you're sourcing products, you're going to have smaller profit margins. Next up is compatibility with various selling channels. Before you just go ahead and choose a POD supplier, please do yourselves a favor and make double sure that that POD supplier supports the selling channel that you're hosting your drop shipping store on.


So now we have a very small amount of time left for query processing. So there are several issues here, for lack of time I am not going to cover all of them. The first part is how do you measure the cost of a query. Then the next part is how do you implement various operations and also estimate their costs. And then the last part is given an expression which has multiple operations, how do I evaluate the whole expression. So I am going to sample bits of each of these and skip other parts of each of these topics. I know the overall process of query execution, you submit a query, there is a parser which translates it into some internal representation which could be relational algebra or it could be some extension of relational algebra or it could be some other form. That is taken up by an optimizer which comes up with an execution plan which it then gives to an evaluation engine which evaluates it. Now how does it decide what plan to choose? It has statistics about the data which it uses to estimate the cost of different plans, cannot actually run it that is too slow. It has to estimate the cost of alternative plans and it will pick the one with the lowest estimated cost and output that as the optimal plan which it gives to the evaluation engine. So that is the basic architecture of all query processing engines. Now an important part of this is the cost of a plan. We are estimating the cost and choosing a plan. Now why is this important first of all? It turns out that for a given query a good plan may execute in a fraction of a second. A bad plan may take hours or days to execute. This actually happened to us in IIT at one point. We had a query which for reasons which I will get into later, the database chose a wrong plan. The reason is it had wrong statistics. Why did it have wrong statistics? That version is an old database system which was sometime ago, 10 years ago. It did not update the statistics after some data was inserted, it had the wrong statistics. On the basis of wrong statistics, it had wrong estimates of the time taken and it chose a wrong plan. This wrong plan actually ran for a few days before we realized somebody started the query and went away and we did not use that machine for sometime after that. Then we come back and we see this disk light on that machine is right continuously. What is this machine doing? I thought it's idle, nothing is happening on it. So then we looked and we realized that the query had started two days before. So what had gone wrong? So we stopped that query. Then we told the database to update its statistics and then ran exactly the same query again. This time it had the right statistics, it chose the correct plan. That plan finished in I think one minute. So this is the kind of difference between a good plan and a bad plan. So the optimizer is absolutely critical in choosing a good plan. It was also absolutely critical in the days before SQL was used. Prior to SQL, who did optimization? A programmer. The programmer actually had to decide how to execute a query. And when SQL systems were first built, they didn't do a great job, the prototypes. And there was a key piece of work from IBM research, which showed how to build an optimizer for SQL. And that was like a seminal paper. It marked a huge change in the way people looked at SQL. Before that, people said SQL is a toy, it's not real. After that, people could see, wow, this optimizer can not only choose a good plan, it often beats expert programmers and chooses a better plan than they would have chosen. And that's when relational database actually took off. Before that, they were a toy. So it is actually that important. Now coming back, how do you estimate what is the cost? There are many factors which contribute to cost. Disk accesses, CPU, network communication in a parallel or a distributed database system are all factors in the cost. As a user, you would say cost is fine. I submit a query, how long does it take to return? But that time actually goes into many different aspects. It goes into disk IO, it goes into CPU cost. And it's often actually hard to estimate the actual time. Because sometimes, you may be able to run multiple IO's in parallel because they happen to be on different disks. And the database doesn't even know how many disks there are on the RAID system. Therefore, what databases do is they use a measure of very cost which is not the elapsed time because it's very hard to measure the elapsed time. The elapsed time also depends on what is in the database buffer and what is not. So that's actually very, very hard to estimate. So instead they use a measure which accounts for how many disk IO's are potentially required in the worst case. How much CPU effort will be required potentially? And they add up these costs to come up with a cost estimate. The disk cost includes a number of seeks and the number of blocks, right? Why do we need to differentiate this? Because the seek is often very slow. You can read blocks much faster than you can seek. So optimizers usually keep these measures separate. If you use a flash disk, you would use the same cost model, but you would simply replace the average seek cost from 10 milliseconds to 1 microsecond or 2 microsecond, whatever it is for that flash device. So the cost model is the same, the constants will change depending on what device you're using. I'm going to skip some more details of query cost and mention a little bit about algorithms. Now, first of all, if I have a selection operation, it's a bare clause. One option is to just scan the whole file and find which records satisfy it. So that has a particular cost, that's linear search. Another is to use an index. How do you decide whether to use an index or not? Now, you might say that index is, if you have a selection, why not use the index? It should be a good idea. Now, if I had a query which said, give me the student with roll number x, y, z. Index is a good idea, that is an index. On the other hand, if I have the takes relation and it's not, and I say, give me everyone who has registered for CS 101. Now, how many people have registered for 101? Assuming there is an index on course ID, there are a huge number of people. Professor Fartek is teaching that course today for 500 people. And he taught it last year for 500 people, actually more, 1,000 people. So if you see how many have taken it, it's pretty much everyone who joins IIT and equivalent in your colleges. So you'll have to retrieve so many records and the index actually becomes a headache. And if you use the index and find record IDs and access records one at a time, you may actually end up with a huge amount of random IO. And the net effect is much slower than if you had simply scanned the whole relation, so this is the job of optimizer. If you see the query, you might say, there's an index on course ID, I will use it, but it turns out it is slower. So the optimizer takes care of this. So index scan is an option, it's a very good option in many queries. For some queries, it's not a good idea, even if it's applicable. I'm going to skip details of the cost computation for indices and move on to the other operations. So we have seen selects primarily using index and scan. Those are the simplest operations. What are the next most important operation in an SQL query? It's probably the join operation. There are other operations, there's a group by operation. How do you evaluate these? In particular, how do you evaluate a join? Let's start with joins. How do you evaluate a join if the relation is much bigger than main memory? You can't do arbitrary things. You have to make sure the amount of IO you do is limited. And it turns out that sorting is actually a key way of implementing a large number of operations, including join. If you think of it, if I have two relations, I want to join them on some common attribute. I want to match records which have the same value for that attribute. If I sort this relation on this attribute, I sort this other relation on this attribute, maybe the relations are huge. But I can read them sequentially in sync. You're familiar with the merging process for sorting. It's very similar to that. I'll read those two relations in sync. And any pair of records which are matching, I realize that they join. And I will output a join result. And then I will continue moving the pointers. There are some details with duplicate values, which can easily be dealt with. So the key intuition is, if the relations are sorted, it's very easy to join. If they're sorted on what? On the join attribute. If they're sorted on something else, it's useless. If they're sorted on the join attribute, I can join it. So the key step here is how to sort. I can join huge relations if they are sorted. The question is, how do I sort huge relations? And that is external sort. So external sort merge is one of the sort algorithms which is applicable to relations which are much larger than memory. I won't get into all the details, but let me show it to an example. So here is supposedly a very large relation out here on the left. And let's suppose my memory is only three records. Of course, realistically, this relation is going to be millions of times bigger. And each of these will also be millions of times bigger. But for the example, let's assume memory can only hold three records. So I will read the first three records into memory, sort it and write it out. Now, this is a file on disk. Next I'll read the next three blocks of memory, sort them and write them out. That's another block on disk. And I continue this till I have a number of sorted files, each of which has one memory full of information. That has taken the first step towards sorting. The next step is to merge these sorted files to get larger sorted files. Now ideally, I can merge all of these at one go into one file. But there are some constraints on how many I can merge together. In particular, if I have a million such files, merging all of them at one go is a million way merge. And the bottleneck there is that when I want to read these for merging, I need to allocate at least one block for each of these files to read them. If a memory does not have a million blocks, I cannot read a million files in sync. So I cannot do a million way merge. So that is a limitation. So I may be forced to merge a few of these. In this case, I'm assuming I can merge only two files at a time. So I merge the first two files and output a relation, which file, which is now, since I merge two files, it's double the size of this. Similarly, I merge these two, it's double the size. Now I can merge these two, allocating one block for reading each of these. And then one block for the output and I get the merged output. Of course, in reality, I'm not going to do two way merge. Memory has a lot of blocks. So the merges themselves are going to be quite wide. I'm going to merge 1,000 or 10,000 things at one go. So that is, in a nutshell, is external sorting. Of course, there are a lot of optimizations since it's such a core operation. People have put a lot of effort into fast sorting and there are benchmarks for sorting. At one point, the benchmark was a gigabyte sort. So how long does it take to sort a relation, which is 1 gigabyte in size? So this was a nice benchmark back when memories were 10 megabytes. After some time, the whole thing fitted in memory and it was no longer an external sort problem. It was an internal sort problem. So then they flipped it around and said, a minute sort. How large a relation can you sort in one minute with a certain amount of memory? So the current sort benchmarks look at this kind of thing. How big a relation can you sort in a fixed amount of time? And there are some truly impressive numbers on how big relations you can sort. So those are highly optimized. So now I'll skip the cost analysis and come to the join operation. Now join itself, there are many ways of doing a join. One of the options is a merge join, which I briefly talked about. But there are also much simpler, but potentially very inefficient things. There's something called the nested loops join, which actually matches every pair of records. And then there's something called the hash join. I don't have time before lunch to cover all of these. So I will just mention nested loops join and index nested loops join. Merge join I've already covered. I'll skip hash join. The nested loops join is very simple. It's like a nested for loop for each tuple in this, for each tuple in that. Check if the pair of tuples satisfies the join condition. Now it turns out that you sometimes need this because the join condition is a complex condition. If the join condition is attribute A equal to attribute B, I can sort on A and sort the other one on B and merge it. That's very easy. But if the join condition is some arbitrary thing, 2A plus 5B is equal to 29 or some function of A plus A and B is equal to some value, and I don't understand what that function is. How do I know which things here potentially match which things there? I don't know. So the fallback option is I will compare every tuple here with every tuple there, run the function, see if it satisfies it. If so, I output it. So that is nested loops join. Now typically you don't want to do this because the cost is quadratic. Occasionally people write queries which they don't realize, but the optimizer is forced to use nested loops join, we will actually see an example in today's lab where people have unintentionally written a query which required a nested loops join and becomes very slow. And there are ways around it, we'll see that in today's lab. Indexed nested loops join is essentially the same thing except over here for each tuple in R, instead of going over every tuple in S, I use an index to find tuples in S that could match this tuple in R. So what should the index be on? It would be on the join column of S. So then I can probe it. So when the number of tuples in R is small, an index nested loop join is easily the best way of doing the join because I don't even look at all of S. If I have an index on the join attribute of S and a small R is easily the best way. But if R is very big, this may not be the best way. Merge join may still be cheaper even after adding the cost of sorting. So that is the job of the optimizer to pick amongst these. So I'm going to skip hash join for lack of time and there are other operations, duplicate elimination, aggregation, all of which can be done using sorting. It turns out, let me spend a minute on aggregation. Supposing I had a query which said group by department and find the number of instructors, how do I run this? If the number of instructors is, number of instructor records is very large, I want to group by department, group instructors by department. A simple trick is to sort the instructor relation on department. What is going to happen? All the instructors for a department will be consecutive, one after another. Now I'll read the first record, it's for some department. I keep reading all the remaining records for that department. They will all be together. I can keep counting how many records. The moment I find an instructor of another department, I know I'm done with the first department. I output that department with its count. Now I start counting the next department and I go through. However large this relation is, if I sort on the grouping attribute using external sort, the actual operation of computing the aggregate with grouping will work with a very small amount of memory, once I have sorted it. So sort to the rescue again, however large the relation is, grouping and aggregation can be done very efficiently after sorting. It turns out hashing can also be used to do aggregation. For lack of time, I won't get into it. Similarly for intersection, union, all of these can be done using sorting or hashing, outer join is another operation. I'm going to skip the details. But again you can do it using variations of the join, merge join or hash join, we're going to skip the details. And come to the last topic in this chapter which is how do you evaluate an expression? Let's see this example here. This is a very simple expression. It runs a selection on department, joins the result with instructor and then projects on name. So there are three operations here. How do I evaluate this query? One simple way of doing it is to start from the bottom of the tree. Here is a select operation. I'll run the select operation on department, get the result and store it as a relation. Next I move one level of the tree, I have a join. This result has already been computed. It's been materialized, so that's why it's called materialized evaluation. So this has been materialized. I can do a join with instructor, output that relation to disk. So this join result has been materialized. Now I read that and project on name and get the output. Now it should be very obvious to you that I'm unnecessarily writing things to disk and reading them back in. Maybe I could have taken this and immediately done a join with it, depending on the join algorithm I used. The output of the join, why on earth did I need to write it to disk? I could have straight away passed it to the projection operation and used it. So that idea leads to what is called pipeline evaluation. Where as far as possible, instead of writing the relation records to disk and reading them back in, I will pass them on to the next operator in the tree. Now pipelining can itself be done in two ways, demand driven and producer driven. And both are used. So what is the difference between them? In demand driven, it's also called lazy evaluation. You start at the top of the tree, let's look at this tree. At the top of the tree, this operator will tell its child operator, give me a tuple. This operator will somehow have to compute the tuple and pass it back up. How does it compute a tuple? It may have to get a tuple from here, a tuple from here. Supposing it's doing merge join, it may have to sort these two and then read one tuple at a time, merge and then if it gets a result, it passes it back in. Now how does this get a tuple? It may have to scan through the relation one at a time, one record at a time, sees if it satisfies it and passes it back in. So each operator here is lazy. When it is asked to give a tuple, it will do the minimum amount of work to generate one tuple and pass it back up. Now an operation here, maybe there's a sort operation in between, that may keep telling this, give me a tuple, give me a tuple. And keep sucking tuples one at a time and then do the sort. So this kind of thing where an operator generates a tuple only when required is called lazy event or it's also called demand driven. And this is very widely used, post-criscule uses this model. In contrast, there's also a model called producer driven where this operator keeps reading tuples from the relation using an index or scan, whatever. And whatever tuples it gets, it pushes it into a buffer. Now between each operator, there's a buffer. So it eagerly pushes tuples into a buffer. Now the join operation finds tuples in its buffer and it can join it with the instructor. And it in turn pushes that whatever it can compute. As soon as it computes, it pushes it into this buffer. This fellow looks at its buffer. As soon as it gets some tuples, it uses them, does whatever it can with them and outputs those. So this is pushing down from below. It's also called eager because these guys don't care about who needs their results. They eagerly pull in, get their input and eagerly generate output. So that is producer driven. Most databases use demand driven as the default. However, when they are doing parallel query processing, sometimes they use a combination. So, each site may work eagerly and finish its work. And then pass the result to the next site. So sometimes they use a combination. But for a single site thing, it's typically demand driven. Let me repeat that question. There are two parts to the question as I see it. Pipelining lets you not materialize an intermediate result. Now, can you always do pipelining? The answer is no. There are some operators which cannot output anything until they have consumed all the input. Sort is one such operator. There are actually some tricks where the sort operator is actually broken into two operators. One of which generates those intermediate runs. And the other one does the merge. And then you can treat it as two operators. One of which has to complete before the next part runs. So now, you cannot pipeline it all the way through. So there are some breaking points. So the overall tree is broken into parts where one part may be able to pipeline tuples till the root. But the root of that has to materialize its result and store it before the next one can even start. So materialization may be unavoidable for many query plans. But where it can be used, it saves a lot of writing and reading it back in. That's a huge amount of effort which is saved. So where possible it will be used. Now, the second part of the question is there may be some situations where there are many queries which use a common result. Then wouldn't it make sense to write it once to disk and then use it across multiple queries? And that's actually a very good question. And most databases don't actually do this. But there are some situations where they do. And there's been a lot of research on this topic which is called multi-query optimization. So the first point is you know there are multiple queries and you want to optimize them together. So why would you get multiple queries? If you're just getting one query at a time, you can't do much. But there are some situations where there's a whole batch of queries which comes together and all of them have to be evaluated. And then you can actually exploit common parts. Now, the optimizer's job is to decide whether a particular result is worth materializing and sharing. Or you just want to recompute and pipeline it to each of the uses. So that is the job of the multi-query optimizer. And that's actually an interesting research area. One which IITB has actually done a fair amount of work on. One of my PhD students did some very nice work on this. But it's kind of an advanced topic, so you're not going to cover it here. Any other questions? That's basically, there's a few more details on the API to implement pipelining, I'm going to skip that so that we can have lunch and come back to our next session.


Welcome to the ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2018 here in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates where I've got the great pleasure of being joined in the studio today. I'm Ms Doreen Bogdan Martin who is a director-elect for the Telecommunication Development Bureau BDT for ITU. Doreen, welcome to the studio. Thank you, happy to be here. Now I'd like to start off by talking about the fact that you've just made history by being the first woman elected official at ITU in 153 years and this conference is also marking the first time that four women have been elected to the position of Plenipotentiary Committee Chair. I wanted to ask you what does that mean for you and do you think that that could have an impact in shaping our digital future? Well I'm thrilled absolutely over the moon I think we are making history we've broken the glass ceiling, opened the door and I think that we will see many more women participating in the ITU activities in the future. I do think it has an impact on digital inclusion in general we can't have the benefits of ICTs unless we do close the digital gender gap and and I think this is one step forward in terms of closing that gap. On a personal note how challenging was it for you to reach this position? Very challenging. It required a lot of determination. I think in many ways it was like running a marathon with lots of ups and downs even some curves and slippery slopes but I managed to keep going. I stayed in my lane followed the course and made it to the finish line. Let's talk about the number of initiatives that you've been at the forefront of to encourage and support more women to choose careers in technology perhaps you could tell us a little bit about those. Sure maybe I'll start with the first one which is Girls on ICT Day which was adopted actually at a Plenty Potentiary Conference in 2010. It celebrated on the fourth Thursday of the fourth month and it's all about bringing girls into either government or the private sector and exposing them to the opportunities that a career in the tech sector could actually provide and there's more than I think 150 countries to date that have actually done celebrations. The other thing that I've done is an award process where we highlight leaders and champions of bridging the digital gender gap that has been transformed into Equals which is the global partnership to bridge the digital gender gap. We have some 60 government private sector and civil society partners and we're focusing on access skills leadership with a cross-cutting research track and I believe our efforts are starting to make a difference. Now coming back to this Plenty Potentiary Conference about four in ten delegates at this conference are women. What do you think could be done to increase the participation of women delegates at future ITU conferences? I think we're making progress four out of ten is almost there. I think we could do a little bit more on our side on the ITU side and encouraging member states to include women on their delegations and maybe more importantly encouraging them to take the microphone. I've been involved in a program that was led by the Federal Communications Commission called We Lead which was a sort of mentoring support network and matching delegates with let's say seasoned delegates with less experienced delegates and I think that kind of mentorship is really helpful. Great and is there anything else that you'd like to add that you don't think we've covered here that might be interesting to our viewers elsewhere? I would say that I'm also encouraged to see the number of African female ministers I think from Francophone and Anglophone countries I think that's an encouraging sign. They're movers and shakers and we see they're really getting the job done so I see that as a a good sign and and role models for for all women and girls. Tourine Bogdan thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much.


Hi there, so based on what I wrote in your notes, I'm just going to show you a little bit of what I was discussing with regards to your course. So right now, I'm going to go into turn off edit mode, and we're going to take a look at this first item. So you have module on topics and objectives, and if I'm a student and I come and I click on that, then I have to click on the PDF as well, and then I have to open it, and it opens up in Adobe itself. If you want to make this a little more seamless so that when they click on the item, not only does the PDF opens, but it opens within the browser, what I'm going to recommend is instead of creating these items, which if we go to edit, we can see you've created pages, right? It says edit blank page up here.  It's not going to still be there. I go to browse, I find a PDF in this case to open, and then I can leave all this as is. I just hit submit, and notice it's down here on the bottom. So again, if I go into edit, turn off edit mode, and I come down here and I click on this, notice that it opens right here on the page. So it just makes it a little bit more seamless. Students aren't popping out of the environment and then coming back in or anything like that. So that's just something that I recommend with regards to just, you know, if you have a lot of those PDFs to upload them as files instead of pages, and then the next thing I'm going to do or talk to your show is, let's go out and let's see here. So the other thing I wanted to do is go into module one readings. And again, just kind of show here. So these two items are links, which is great. And then you have Cheyenne Stowell. Now this is an item, which means in order to view it, it's basically laid out on the page like this. I would recommend saving it as a PDF. So you can put it into a Word document and then save it as a PDF. So that it ends up looking more like the excerpt from Winer here, that when you click on it, it brings you right into the page as soon as it downloads. So I would just recommend doing that. Again, it just, it keeps it on the page and it also keeps your readings here laid out a little bit more clean and easier to move through. So those would be kind of my recommendations on kind of how you might change them. Let me know if you have any questions and if I can be of any further assistance. Thank you.


What's good, Josh. More Ross back here with another video. I got to give a disclaimer for my thoughts and opinions on a W double or nothing. I don't know if you can tell, but I've lost my voice. I was partying with the homies for Dubb's wife. It was her birthday celebration, so we was on a party boat. That's why we did live stream and react to the pay review. But I turned up and I lost my voice. So my voice sounds a little bit hoarse. That's just what the that's the reason why I had a good time. But I did make it a mission to watch it today. And overall, it was very long pause. It was a long pay review, but I enjoyed it overall. I'm trying to get through this thought and opinions. My voice sounds oh so awful. Let me try to take some drinks of water. No, that didn't work. My voice is shot in his awful right now. So I'm going to try to get through this because I know you guys want to get my thoughts and opinions on the show. Like I said, I enjoyed it, but let's kind of run through my notes. I was able to take some notes, but it was a lot going on. So I'm going to go through my notes and talk about each match one by one. So let's get started to this MJF versus Warlow. Now, going into this match, there was a lot of speculation that Warlow, not Warlow, MJF was supposedly like he didn't show up for like a fan meet and greet. Maybe he had booked a flight ticket back home, but he never got on the plane. And then I guess apparently he was going like it seemed like he wasn't going to show up for the show. And a lot of people were concerned and worried. Some people were feeling like, well, is this going to be another Sasha? They held me situation. I figured it wasn't. I didn't want to report on it because obviously there were still some more things that we didn't know. So I didn't want to talk about it, but I did see it on Twitter and Instagram and YouTube. But I'm glad that he didn't show up. I'm glad that he showed up for the simple fact that this was obviously Warlow's biggest match and he needed this. So I think it kind of plays into the fact why this was the first match because I was not expecting this match to be the very first match on the show only because they've been building this up for months. This has been a slow build and we all wanted to see Warlow following in his hands on MJF. So the fact that they built this up, it kind of plays into the fact of maybe after he kind of went to get the match over with, do the job for Warlow and then kind of dip out. That's that's the vibe I got. Like I would think this show, this match would be like in the middle of the show. But it seemed like he kind of just wanted to do this match and then dip. So I don't know if that's true. We'll find out what's going on as the weeks. Goodbye. Also, MJF, he lit it up easily with the Miss Hills of the business had on a Ric Flair type road, get a lot of good hill. He did. You also have Warlow kind of getting the Goldberg type entrance. Like he's definitely like getting, giving like Goldberg vibes. The way he walks, he's been walking to the arena with security, his hair cut, they're giving him the Goldberg treatment. Hopefully they are able to continue his momentum, because I think his momentum really started going since he started feuding with MJF, because MJF is so much of a good heel.  So they definitely was giving off some Goldberg vibes here.  But of course, as he's doing that, crowds chatting BS, because they know his BS. And he thinks that the refs and Warlow is not watching him. But he tries to pull the old pulling out his AEW ring. His tights pulls it out and he's about to put it on. The ref sees it, pulls it off his finger. And from there is pretty much Warlow just power bombing him into oblivion and the crowd loves it. I was expecting more wrestling match, but it was just power bombs and the power bomb and the power bomb. And you know what? It worked because the crowd was hot. The crowd was popping. They were loving it. I was enjoying it and Warlow got the win. One, two, three.  After all the power bombs he received crowd chatting, you deserve it. It was awesome. And he got a Warlow going to stand an ovation up the ramp. And that was the end of the first match. It was kind of straight to the point. I was expecting more because they've been building this for quite some time. But I don't know what type of backstage issues are going on with MJF in Tony Khan. So maybe that played into the fact he just wanted to do the match, put over Warlow and dip. So I don't know what they're going to do with MJF. We will see. He is a very top tier hero and talent in the company. So I don't know what they're going to do. But overall, it was straight to the point. I enjoyed the segment for what it was. And now we will see what they do with Warlow now because now you got to put him with, I guess, another opponent that's really going to continue to keep his momentum going. So that was cool. Enjoy that. Next match was the Young Bucks versus the Hardys, man. And it was cool to see the Hardys go out there. Just see them in a tag team match all these years later. Like it's a very good, very no tag team in the Young Bucks. I was excited for this match. May second match to follow up when we just watched another cool spot in this match, very cool. Matt Jackson is laying on the steel steps, like just prone to steel steps and propped up. He's laying on top of them. You already know Jeff is about to do Jeff things. Jeff goes to the top row. It's a swan turn bomb or it's a Matt Jackson on the steel steps. Six spot.  Love that spot. Ultimately, the Hardys boys end up getting the win there. I enjoyed that match. It was fun. It was cool. I enjoyed seeing Hardys. I love watching the Young Bucks match, even though sometimes I can't get repetitive with the Super Kicks. But I did like what they did here. This is cool, pretty cool spots to get on to the next one. And a J versus J. Now this match, for me, it kind of, you know, the energy kind of dipped out just a little bit. But it got back up with a surprise return. So we're not a surprise return. A surprise debut. Jay was looking pretty dominant at the beginning of this match. I kind of figured Jay was going to win, but Jay was looking very dominant as expected. And then Jay started to get some offense during during like the middle of the match. And then all of a sudden some chaos starts ensuing during ringside and Stokely, I want to say, I believe he was in NXT. He was like a manager somewhat like he had a manager role in NXT. He appeared now comes down to ramp. I guess he's going to be managing or assisting Jade going forward. I couldn't be wrong there. He ends up winning a from with a top rope. I want to say it's like a top row. It's our finisher something. It's I don't know that I don't remember the name of it, but she hit it off the top rope. It looked cool. It looked brutal.   Pins and a J123. Then she's about to, you know, heal it up with with her baddies. Click or whatever. She's about to go put in some work or energy, some more go rogue. And then I believe somebody else. I forgot her name. Like I said, pay for you was all I forgot her name comes out to assist.  You see Athena pop up on the graph and, you know, AKA Ember Moon and she makes an AEW debut and they all stand in the ring crowd goes pretty crazy. I was pretty shocked to see it. It was cool to see her back in a wrestling ring. She's going by Athena, not Ember Moon anymore. And I am interested to see what they do with her. The women's division could definitely use her for sure. And I'm looking forward to her and Jade actually having a real good match at some point down the road. So I'm interested to see what they do with that. So that was I think that's probably the takeaway from this whole match. It's more so. Athena coming out and becoming all elite. So I think that's the most that's the takeaway from this match. Now, at this point, I have to say. As I'm watching the show, the Dev Triangle versus the House of Black was easily my favorite match up to this point. This match was so goddamn good. I don't really know too much about the feud. And guess what?  This match was must watch. Oh, my God. At this point, I was like, OK, now we ramping it up. Matt started with a very quick pace. Race started sitting in the ring cross leg like a Malacar Black. Malacar Black started doing the same thing. They started going at it. Buddy and Penta in the ring in the ring action was fast paced as well.  So everybody had their exchange one on one within the match. Very cool, very, very enjoyable. Then all three, I mean, all six competitors get in the ring.  They start brawling chaos ensuing. I loved it, Julia. Then I'm skipping towards it towards the end. Because there's so much that went on this match. So Pock decides to hit Alistair.   Goes to the top rope by the hitters. Finisher likes to go out. Julia Hart sprays black mist in Pock's eyes and ultimately allows Malacar Black to get the win. And I put in my notes best match so far up to this point. That match was fun. If you get a chance, just go watch that. If, like I said, matches like these, it's hard for me to take notes because there's so much going on and I wish I could have watched this live. But you guys, maybe I'll probably have my voice.  But ultimately this was this was cool, man. This was great. And I was like, OK, show is definitely starting to pick up. So we have the men's finals for the Owen Hart tournament. Adam Cole versus Samoa Joe. Crowd was chanting Owen's name at the beginning of the match. I expected the match to be pretty good. I didn't know if it was going to be able to top what we just saw previously, but I expected it to be decent, which it was. Didn't really take too many notes on this one. Just the focus was Adam was working over Samoa Joe's elbow. Then, of course, one of Adam Adam's guys tries to interfere in the match. Ultimately, I guess you can say it kind of cost Samoa Joe in losing in losing this match or whatnot. It's Adam Cole ends up getting the win. So when Adam Cole won, I knew for a fact that Britt Baker was going to win the women's side because it doesn't make sense if Adam Cole wins the men's side. Britt Baker is going to win the women's side. And that's kind of what happened on the follow-up match. Britt Baker versus Ruby Soho for the Hartz women's tournament. Women's side of the tournament and the crowd was actually split. People were chanting Ruby. People were chanting Britt Baker for her match. It was it was a good atmosphere. Both matches had good atmosphere. I feel like the women's match had a lot more, like, I guess you could say crowd involvement more than I was expecting. But definitely they were, you know, the crowd was still had energy. They were still invested. And she ended up winning with a counter roll up. Ruby Rose, Ruby Soho hit her with a roll up. And then Britt Baker hit her with a counter roll up for the one, two, three. And that was it. And what was surprising about it is Britt Baker is a heel. But she kind of came off as a face here.  And, you know, like a hand of good sportsmanship, which I thought was pretty cool. I was not expecting it, but it was pretty cool. And I think it plays into the fact of the tournament. I'm guessing that's why I don't know. Granted, Adam Cole was trying to heal.  So don't know, but I like the sportsmanship in that, in that particular moment.  They look so goddamn beautiful. And these are belts that they not defend. They just keep as, you know, trophies that they won the respective tournaments. And I thought it was cool. This was this was awesome to see. And they they did the Owen Hart tournament justice, bro. I think they did it. They handled it with care and class and I enjoyed it. Definitely enjoyed it. It was cool. It was it was definitely, definitely cool. You could see they took it seriously. And that's what I want to see in wrestling tournaments. The seriousness of it. Don't have a tournament if you don't take it seriously. Like I like that and I thought that was pretty cool. So definitely kudos to them getting the dub here and we'll see what they do, how they play up the fact that they both won the tournament. You know, so how they're going to, how they're going to play up the fact of they both winning, going in, going for it in a week. It's moving forward. All right, Ethan Page, Scorpio, Scorpio Sky and Page Vincent, which I didn't know was an AEW now, apparently, or, you know, made a debut in AEW. Did I know that versus take? What's her name? Contanti Contanti. I think that's how you say it. I'm probably mispronouncing. Take Contanti, Sammy, Sammy, Gavara and Frankie, Kazarian.  So people started legit booing them when they were faces.  We're just going to go heal now and embrace it. So it kind of works. So I think that was pretty cool that they decided to embrace the hate there. I think the story is Sammy's so hung up on his girl that he does anything to like appease her and impress her. And J.R. was mentioning our commentary. And that's what kind of was helping. It was kind of their downfall on this match, because he would. Sammy wouldn't even be worried about the the like tagging in Frankie, Kazarian, because he's so busy trying to impress his girl or whatnot. And it was causing some confusion to the point where Frankie left them high and dry when it was like a three on one situation. It was like a mix, mix women, a mixed tag match or whatever. But then Frankie comes back into the match. He tags himself in to try to, you know, get the pin victory. And then there's some confusion there when he tags himself in with Sammy and Tay Conti. I'm sure I'm mispronouncing it.  That was a beautiful super kick out of nowhere. Crowds saying you have to ultimately they end up losing. I mean, the match was what it was.  It wasn't nothing like just awe inspiring, but it was cool. She was serviceable. But I mean, even when she came out, the crowd was kind of just you know, gave her a lukewarm welcome. So I don't know. But this was a low point of the show for me to get into the next match. Kyle versus Darby Allen or what not. So early in the match, Darby gets busted open in the lip because Kyle O'Reilly, he's very stiff. He they show a replay, a stiff, legit knee to the face. Busted them open early in the match. Darby Allen does some type of dive under. I want to say is like he tried to dive under. I don't know if it was over or under the bottom ropes, but it looked like he ended up landing on his head and neck region trying to dive at Colorado, very, very brutal. I mentioned in my notes, this is a very hard hitting match, which it was. Ultimately, Colorado wins with multiple just kicks to the chest. Just I don't mean he's launching them. And Darby Allen is sitting up taking it like a keep, keep coming at me until Colorado jumps from the top rope with a knee to the side in the back off the top rope. Beautiful, Colorado, very stiff wrestler. It was an enjoyable match. The Darby Allen, Colorado match, I definitely would have preferred that a bit on the show, but I understand that they, you know, they have to promote, you know, the TNT championship with Scorpion Sky. So I get that I understand that I just probably would have preferred this match over the last previous match, but it is what it is. All right, so we get to the women's AEW championship match at this point. Fatigue is definitely setting in because it's a long show. Thunder Rosa versus Rene Deeb. They were showing some good chain wrestling at the beginning. The crowd was starting to chant this is wrestling. They were really showing out like just their wrestling ability. And I enjoyed the way they started off the match. Didn't really take too much note here. It was cool. It was it was serviceable, in my opinion. I think it was, you know, a solid women's championship match. And I predicted that Serena Deeb wasn't going to win. Thunder Rosa is entertaining. They're still trying to build her up and build up her title reign and the crowd is still heavily behind her. But overall, solid women's championship match. Now, this next match I posted on Twitter. This was just insane me watching this. There's no way I could take notes. I was wasn't taking as much of those prior to.  I died laughing. Easily the best moment of the goddamn show. It was great. Anarchy and arena. The name is appropriate because it was just chaos. The Jericho Appreciation Society versus John Marksley, probably Daneson, Santa Ortiz, Eddie Kingston, Santana, I said Santa Santana Ortiz, Eddie Kingston. It was just a brawl. It was just a brawl. Jericho Appreciation Society enters at a ramp in the ring. Everybody else enters through the crowd. And for the first few minutes of the actual match, John Marksley's theme song is just playing throughout the entire brawl. It's just camera cuts, just brawling. People get busted open, fighting in the crowd, fighting in the technical area, fighting in the audio area. It just I had nothing to say. But this was great. I wish I could have watched this with you live. I would have been dying. This was so this brought energy back into me. The placement of this match was actually pretty good because at this point, I started to feel like I was kind of losing energy because I was seeing some pretty good wrestling. And then, you know, everything else was like it was cool, but it was just I was getting tired. This brought life back into me. And it brought life into that whole arena. It was just chaos. Everybody was bleeding, except for like Jericho. Damn, it was just blood. I loved it. I loved it. I put in my notes. I didn't care what I'm watching, but I had I'm having fun. Jericho smashes the soundboard that I guess supposedly kept playing John Moxley music, so he messes that up. So the music stops put off some of my notes. I can't take notes. This is just chaos. Everyone's busted open. Eddie Kingston made it his mission to let it be known. He was going to kill somebody. You got Santana and Ortiz jumping off this huge high ladder crashing down on two members of the Jericho Appreciation Society down below. Six spot. You got violence on the elevator. Don't know what's going on. Violence in the concession stand area. Eddie Kingston comes down with a canister gasoline. Jericho has day. Day Brown has Jericho in the La Belle Lock. And Daniel Brown was getting massive. Yes, chance. It was giving me shades of the yes movement. It was great. I'm Brian Daniels on Michael Agile comes out there. Gas canister. He starts pouring it on Jericho. Wow, he's in the La Belle Lock. Wow, he's getting gas on him, too, bro.  So they start brawling. And then that's when everything falls apart.   They destroyed the top turnbuckle rope, like the whole turnbuckle, the top term. John Moxley destroyed that in the ring. He ends up they end up, I think Jake Hager ends up pushing John Moxley onto a table of there's a table set outside the ring. And then there's like a plywood set up with barbed wire that he brought out that John Moxley brought out. He is a falling on that. He's out of the match. And then they just, you know, Brian Anderson tries to bend them off as much as he can. But he's not able to. I believe Eddie Kingston gets a hit with Jericho's juice effect or something like that. I want to say like a little back elbow. He gets hit with that. He's out. And then Brian is trying to defend off Hager and Jericho, but ultimately he's not. The number games get the best of him. Jericho, he's the the walls, has the walls applied to Brian's day of sin, but then he puts it into like a half correct Boston grab or something like that. And then Jake Hager has the top rope tied on his neck while he's in that submission and he doesn't have. He passes out as expected in the match ends with the Jericho appreciation society winning.  This was fun. I can't. I it reminded me so much of the attitude there and just chaos and brutality, and it was fun. It's I wouldn't even call that a match. It was just fun. That was fun. I in that was the most enjoyable part. The best match of the night was the trio's match. That was the best match. This was the easily the best part segment, whatever you want to call because I can't call it a match. It was just fun. So definitely just go check that out by yourself. You'll you'll enjoy it. All right. At this point, I'm just full of energy, just hyped. We got the EW World Tag Team Championship match was not expected to be able to follow the hype of what we just saw, but they showed they put on a pretty good tag team match. Keith Lee with Swerve Strickland versus Jungle Boy, Luchasaurus versus Powerhouse Hobbs and Ricky Starks. Jungle Boy and Luchasaurus retain. It was it was it was a nice, nice tag team match with three teams. It was enjoyable. I think the most memorable spot for me was seeing Swerve doing like this backflip. He goes to the top row. There's a backflip off of Keith Lee's chest to everyone outside on the floor. Fantastic. Keith Lee is just for someone that big. He should not be moving that fast and being that agile. He's just fantastic crowd was definitely behind them a lot. Keith Lee and and Swerve Swerve Strickland. But ultimately, they end up giving the win to Luchasaurus and Jungle Boy. Crowd still kind of behind them as well. Interested to see what they do with them going forward. And we get to the main event. And I have to talk about this one only because in my personal opinion, some may disagree with me. I think this main event was probably one of the weaker ones from Adam Page. And what I mean by that is titled this title defense was probably one of the weaker ones only because of how it it felt like it should have been. This is CMP versus Adam Page. It should have been it should have felt bigger. But maybe that's because, you know, you had 12 other matches. So it's kind of hard to really bring all that energy at the end of the show like that. I just felt like it should have felt bigger, but it didn't was enjoyable. Yes, it was. But it just it didn't really hit all the notes I was expecting it to. But we're going to get into it. So I was there. It's the crowd did have energy when they came out. Crowd was split when the match started. It kind of died down towards, you know, towards the middle part. But it would pick back up here and there when one person would gain more offense. You heard to see a punk chance and you heard to Adam Page chance. See him punk tries to hit the bookshot layer. He definitely messes it up. Doesn't really land it properly crowd booze him. But he pays for it in the end. He didn't he wasn't able to actually hit it. But Adam Page was able to hit the GTS. And when he hits the GTS, see him punk kicks out crowd going crowd. I was a choice to end the crowd really started ramping up. Um, and then there was a situation where I want to say see him punk was trying to hit the GTS on a page again. Ends up swinging him and it hits the ref. Of course, the ref gets knocked out for an obscene amount of time. At that point, the championship is in the ring because I want to say Adam Page had threw him over the timekeepers area where the belt was at. And the belt somehow ended up getting back into the ring or whatever, but it was in the corner. So I'm like, uh, yeah, they're going to use this at some point. So the belt's in the corner, the ref is down, see him punk is down. Adam Page is up, he goes, picks up the belt and I'm like, is he going to turn heel here? I was like, is he going to do this?  He wanted to win legit. So he puts it down, goes for the buck shot. Larry gets countered into the GTS and the ref comes to right at that precise moment. One, two, three. And see him punk is your new AEW World Heavyweight Champion. And I was thoroughly surprised because I didn't think they were going to actually pull the trigger, but they pulled the trigger. I wasn't expecting that. I thought maybe they're going to give Adam a little bit longer of a run, but they pulled the trigger. I was surprised and you can tell see him punk seemed very emotional. Like he seems super emotional. Like when he wanted, you know, you can tell he was very, very excited and happy about that. But I do believe this is not over the way they set up the story of Adam really conflicted on doing that. Because if he would have hit him with the title, he would have won, but he didn't cheat. And I think maybe that's a way that you can turn Adam into a heel because it's like, bro, if I would have cheated, I would have won that match. You know, maybe he turns heel from there. I do believe they will have another match and I have a feeling maybe their next match, the rematch will be better because this match was OK. I think this match was fine. I think if you have this match on a show with less matches, I think this be even better because I just think the crowd would be consistently more energetic in a sense. And the people at home would probably have more energy to watch it considering what we just saw. And I think that's the biggest thing for me when it comes to this overall show. If I I'm going to give my rating on this, I'm going to give this a seven and a half out of 10. It would be higher if there was less matches. There was all the matches on this card were serviceable.  It was every match on there was like serviceable, doable. I wouldn't rewatch every match here on this show, but it was definitely serviceable. But yeah, that's that's the real reason why, even though I'm watching the Adam, even though I was I was happy to see Adam versus CM Punk, I was kind of already in the mud like, who I'm ready to kind of get this over with overall, I didn't enjoy the show. This was fun. This was great, a W they knocked it out a part for the most part with this one. I just the only drive I have is I wish they were taking off some of the matches on this card and I think the main event could have benefited me personally. It probably would have benefited even better because it would, you know, we would have gotten to the main event sooner and I don't know. It just it would have I would have more energy potentially. So but comment down below. Let me know. Did you guys enjoy double or nothing this year? What was your favorite match? What was your least favorite match or were you guys happy with CM Punk becoming the new AEW World Champion? Or were you guys kind of disappointed in that? And where do you guys see the next potential few for CM Punk? Will you have a rematch with Adam Page, man? And also let me know if you feel like the show was a little bit too long or it was just the right amount of left. But I appreciate all love and support.  Like I'm a chronic smoker. I'm sorry. I'm definitely not. It's just my voice is definitely going from yesterday's activities. I'm just trying to take some medicine so I can get back to normal. But I appreciate all love and support run to 90 K. Appreciate you giving me. See you on the next one. Peace.


Today, we're going to take your video from looking and sounding like this to this with only $100. Hey, it's Herman here again on Artlist and if you're like me when I first started making videos, you're probably looking for the cheapest way to look like a pro. Thankfully, you can shoot high quality content for your YouTube in the comfort of your own home and with the phone in your pocket. So instead of replying to that Nigerian prince for a windfall of money, let's learn the greatest magic trick I know, turning $100 into your own professional content creation space. Now you don't want to miss any of these steps because just like a Jenga tower, your setup can fall apart without just one of these pieces. If you're ready, then hit that like button and let's go. Unless you've got the forearm size of the rocks, I find that holding anything, including my phone, gets pretty exhausting after a while. That's why it is so important to mount your device onto something that you can adjust the height of. Trust me, no one wants to watch this angle of you talking all the time.  Adjust it to a cozy eye level so that the viewers feel like they're right next to you and you're good to go. Just make sure to even out the other arm before you buy this though. Next, let's take care of your main light source. Now this is known as your key light in a three-point lighting setup, which is the technique we'll be using for your home studio because it's the most standard setup for a professional look. If you have a large window at home, then you can use that as your main source of light and put a bit of your money into your piggy bank. Maybe even invest a bit more onto step five, which is super important, but we'll get to that. But if you are a vampire like me, or you just don't have many windows, then softboxes are your best friends. With this one only being $37, it's the easiest and cheapest way to instantly get professional lighting. Sure, you can use that IKEA lamp sitting in your living room instead, but the advantage of a softbox is in its name. It produces soft light. That means instead of having harsh, defined shadows that look like you're being interrogated, soft, smooth shadows feel professional and way more pleasant to look at. Softboxes will also cover a broader area, which gives you wiggle room while still being well lit. Now when I first set up my light, I wonder why it didn't look like a million dollars studio. If you're wondering the same thing, then I recommend looking at the title of this video you're watching and then be relieved that there's actually a very simple fix to this.  Now if you're filming against a flat wall, then make sure to bring your seat and lights away from the wall to create a sense of depth. Now it might not look like a million dollars, but it does look a million times better than when we first started. When I had my first light set up, I realized that everything I shot was too dark and dramatic. Now this may have been good for my emo phase, but showing off your space creates a more welcoming atmosphere. Thankfully, I think that you can use a larger variety of lights to do this. Yes, I'm looking at you IKEA lamp. By strategically placing the lights you already own into your scene, you can make it way more visually interesting than just a flat wall. Any lights that you can see in the frame are known as practicals. There's a cinematography trivia fact for you. Now remember that three-point lighting setup I mentioned earlier? One of those lights is your backlight. We have a background light so far, but not a backlight. Yep, this distinction was how I almost failed film school. A backlight, as the name implies, lights your back. I like using LED lights to do this because of how cheap and portable they are. The ones here run about $25 for two lights and it comes with stands. That's two for one deal that you'd only expect from McDonald's. So let's point one of these lights at your back to create some separation between you and the background. The other light can be used as a background light if you don't have any lights you want to use at home.  This is really dependent on the look that you're going for and what's available to you because in most cases I've completely stopped using a fill light entirely. But I do want to share a few options for you so that you can adjust how bright your fill is. If you're filming in a white room like I am right now, then the lights will bounce off the walls so that your shadows aren't going to be too dark. So option one is to just not set up a fill light at all. Option two is to get something to bounce the light from the softbox onto your face. Something as simple as a white foam board from a dollar store can do this.  Option three is to use an additional light. However, I recommend balancing the light instead of pointing it directly at your face. Remember, we want to keep the light on your face soft and fluffy like a marshmallow, so you can use that additional LED you bought to do this. Just aim the light at the white surface and say goodbye to those intense shadows. With your lights set up, you are almost ready to be a content-creating beast, but I have saved the most important thing for last, your audio. Now, I didn't really care about good audio when I first started because I thought that visuals were more important to keep your viewers engaged. But without good sound, a video becomes pretty unbearable to watch and people are going to click one of two buttons, this one or this one. There's so many options now that hook up to your phone, but I want to recommend a wireless lab solution in this video.  Lav mics are small microphones that can be attached to your body for high quality audio. Check out our blog post for more information about different types of microphones and what they accomplish. The ones I'm using right now run about $26. It makes your audio go from sounding like this to this, which is way better to listen to. On the topic of good audio, music and sound effects also play a massive part in creating high quality content. Choosing the wrong music can be another reason for people to click off your videos, so having options to a wide range of genres like on Artlist is pretty handy. They also have templates, footage, plugins, and apps to enhance your video, so check out Artlist if you need high quality assets to match your new high quality studio. Congratulations because you now have an awesome setup that doesn't stop you from creating your best videos. Now if you're looking to upgrade your equipment eventually, then there are so many options out there, but the fundamentals stay the same. In this case, I'm using a more expensive softbox, no fill, and just let the LED lights behind me be the background light and backlight. Now if you want more ways to save money and effort on creating high quality content, then make sure to subscribe to our channel and check out the video where I shot a commercial with only one light. Otherwise, thanks for watching and I'll see you in the next one.