So good morning friends, I'm delighted to be speaking to you once again on the medium of television and I've chosen a more specific subject rather than a general subject which is why large advertisers even today in a digital age prefer television as an advertising medium and spend very vast amounts of money on it.  Now to buttress my point, take a look at ad spends on TV, Lara is someone moving this? Yeah, so take a look at this graph in 2012 ADEX was about 11,500 crores, TV ADEX. In 2012 it comfortably crossed 30,500 crores, that's about an 11% compounded annual rate of growth. To know the number for 2023, I'm afraid you have to meet me again on this forum on February 15th when we will present the pitch medicine advertising report which will give you a snapshot of what happened in 23 and our prognosis for what to expect in 2024. Now as they say you know you can get numbers to prove almost anything that you want to say and I think that is true for the graph that I showed you earlier, here are the same figures viewed in a different way from a contextual point of view. This graph which gives you share of TV ADEX among total ADEX tells you a completely different story so whilst absolute numbers are going up for TV it's true that its share of ADEX is coming down steadily since Covid year so from a high of 42% to a low of 34% in 2022 I can say that this trend is unlikely to reverse in 2023. Look at similar numbers in a global context globally TV share of ADEX in 2022 is estimated to be only 18% by the respected walk compared to 34% in India twice as much. So let's ask ourselves are Indian advertisers and marketers smarter or are marketers and advertisers in other countries getting swayed by the digital juggernaut. Yet another dimension to these figures if you drill them down a bit is demonstrated by this graph. While share of TV ADEX in 2022 was 34% if I take the TV ADEX of only top 25 advertisers then top advertisers spend 60% of their advertising budget on TV and it has always been like that varying between 60 and 65% except in Covid year. If I looked at the figures for top 50 advertisers again they are similar the number ranges between 58 and 62%. So the obvious question that strikes me and I'm sure will strike all of you and the should strike the media and the advertising and the marketing community at large is why do large advertisers spend twice as much as the others do on TV as a percent of their total spend. According to me there are three main reasons why large advertisers spend or should I say still spend a very large proportion of their advertising budget on television. The first is because it is efficient and also effective. TV seems to score much much better on a metric called attention a relatively new parameter that advertisers now believe should be looked at whilst evaluating media options. And third and quite importantly important from a brand building point of view the lingering effect of television we have seen is much longer than that provided by other medium. So let's take a closer look at these three reasons. First efficiency and effectiveness a simple reason according to me why TV is more efficient for large brands is that currency for TV from the point of view of buying it is CPRP cost per rating point and not cost per thousand cost per thousand for TV reduces considerably if the brands target group is large. The rough benchmark we say that for those brands with a target group of more than 40 million TV is far more efficient perhaps if the target audience is less than 40 million much less than 40 million digital may make sense. The currency of CPRP on TV is advantageous to the advertiser can we see the next one to the advertiser and detrimental to the media owner. On the other hand currency of digital CPT is advantageous to the media owner and detrimental to the advertiser. Another advantage of TV we have to recognize is that TV delivers very often huge spillover of audiences free of cost. If you had a plan to reach 2.4 million female adults of age group 22 to 40 SCCA and B your media agency will give you a media plan reaching 2.4 million such women and giving you a CPRP for it which you may find quite acceptable. What you often don't recognize that in addition to that media plan delivering 2.4 million it is delivering 5.6 million audience in other cohorts at no extra cost to you. On the other hand in digital we have to pay for every single person that you reach. So spillover audiences is definitely a big advantage for television. For a lot of brands spillover audiences are critical because we have seen that a very large number of people from diverse target groups buy most large brands which defy a very narrow or sharp target audience definition. There is increasing realization amongst marketers specially of large brands that to narrowly defining your target audience which you have to do in digital in order to control your costs may be a mistake. Take a look at this case. It shows that a large volume of sale of Colgate toothpaste is made up actually of millions and millions of people purchasing it quite infrequently. So they are not defined they may be they are not defined as the core target audience of Colgate and yet the majority of sales of Colgate come from these people not the core loyalists who only use Colgate every day. It was Byron Sharp who first brought out the rich theory saying FMCG makers have to prioritize on selling as much to their loyal audience as to infrequent users and non-users. So for a highly penetrated established brand like Colgate toothpaste only 9% of buyers bought the brand five times or more in a year. So growth for headroom is in targeting 59% non-users and TV as we know delivers broad audiences enabling recruitment of infrequent users. Also we have seen that in many many cases for newer brands or growing brands TV advertising helps build distribution like nothing else can. Take a look at one of our clients Parag milk foods makers of Govardhan ghee and Go cheese. The company after being silent for a few years pre-COVID wanted to come back with a big splash. We recommended a media plan that incorporated sponsorship of KBC whilst of course brand equity measures went up dramatically and so did worth of mouth. The company to their delight found that there was another very serious and major unintended benefit and it must be because the company reported this in its analyst meeting. They said the company ghee distribution grew 37% and we doubled our reach for Go cheese by doubling distribution. So on the first point I say TV is very effective and efficient for large advertisers. It is cheaper than other mediums in terms of cost per reach point a very very important parameter that all advertisers and marketers must track and not just low CPRP TV delivers spillover audiences free of cost and these audiences invariably contribute a lot to brand sales could be as much as 30 40 50% and TV can improve distribution coverage. My second point is that TV drives attention a relatively new parameter that advertisers now believe that should be looked at when evaluating other media options. I hope all of you by now have heard of Professor Karen Nelson Field who I spoke about in a presentation some years ago pre-COVID. Some of you I think have the pleasure of meeting her in our own city very recently. She's a globally renowned media science researcher and is best known to establish equivalence norms for different media on what she calls the attention metric. The attention metric is 46% in the case of a 30 seconder it goes up to 50% for a 15 seconder but for a skippable 20 seconder it can be as low as 25% going up to 40% for a 6 seconder. I must highlight to you before you take these figures very seriously or try to apply them for your brand. This is a generalized chart from another country for a category. In actual effect these numbers vary quite a bit by geography, demography and messaging. We are hoping that we will be able to establish a very own attention metrics in India very soon. So what is attention and why does it matter to an advertiser given the fact that there is so much what we call noise in the marketplace today compared to say the early days of television when Durdarshan ruled the roost. One could say with some comfort that you had almost 100% attention of an ad today we know that is idealistic and does not exist today. All of us are always double-tasking, double-hitting doing multiple things as we watch television as we scroll down our mobile screens. So this new metric of attention is becoming very relevant to track with given today's media habits of consumers. She studied in this example two campaigns with similar ad budgets but with varying media mix and she found that in one case where the attention adjusted seconds were substantially higher than another media plan the outcome was actually more than double. In one another case she concluded that there was a 65% increase in outcome when the media mix is optimized to increase GRPs adjusted for attention. So it does appear that the attention metric in today's world is becoming critical and attention adjusted GRPs if I may call them that are actually a critical medium to track because they have the ability to drive outcome at scale. My third and final reason why I believe large advertisers prefer TV is because TV ads have a longer lingering effect. How many of you remember still this Cadbury dairy milk ad which I think burst on our television screens over 10 years ago? So lingering effect is quantified by a concept that is called half life. We all know that the effect of any ad in any medium on the brand's equity health parameters deteriorates after the campaign gets over. The time it takes to deteriorate to half the level it reached at its peak is what researchers call half life and it is determined in terms of number of weeks. Now most media mix experts will unanimously agree that half life of TV advertising is much more sometimes three times as much than that of any other media. And from a marketers point of view ROI can be maximized when the time gap between two schedules of the same campaign can be stretched or lengthened. So ads that remain in memory help increase outcomes even when no campaign is running. This of course as we know is very different from performance marketing where brand health measures and outcomes slide down very very sharply when investments are stopped. So bark no. So whilst all this is of course true I think the fact that we must recognize as intelligent media people is that many cohorts that are relevant to many brands are watching less of television today. And this is specially so amongst the young bark now fortunately gives us viewership data across heavy medium and light TV viewers. A closer examination reveals that time spent on TV is reducing amongst youngsters and males. The average drop in time spent between 2019 and today among light TV viewers in age group 15 to 21 is 29 percent but in the 50 plus age group among light viewers the decline is only 16 percent but nevertheless there is a decline. So therefore I submit to you it is very relevant today for us to look at TV viewers in three buckets heavy users heavy viewers medium viewers and light viewers. This slide my next slide brings out the implication on media mix of this analysis. Let's say we are targeting females of age group 22 to 60 SCC AB Indian urban which is about 70 million individuals. And we create a plan conventionally that we say delivers 540 GRPs. A heavy medium and light analysis will show that you will read 23 million individuals with almost double the GRPs at 913. Another 23 million with 478 GRPs closer to what you intended but another 23 million individuals a third will get only 242 GRPs less than half of what you intended the plan to deliver. So the truth is you are not adequately meeting your reach objective with one third of your target audience if you used television alone going by everything that I told you earlier because of its substantial I would say qualitative and quantitative advantages. And this is where I believe digital should come in to fill that gap Google cleverly now provides us information on these 23 million light TV viewers through use of technology that enables us to address these light TV viewers through digital video and make up our objective of 540 GRPs. So it is true that in many cases exclusive use of TV alone will lead to inadequate exposure of your message to light TV viewers and that gap should be filled by digital video. Next slide go to the next one I think this is just a summary. However the question that remains in my mind and I'm sure in your mind is why is then TV share of ad-ex coming down in India and more so in Western countries. I obviously don't have the answer but I have a hypothesis that I want to share with you. First we all know and this is a reality that a marketer's term in a company is shortening so is the term of the CEO and CFO. I can see all around there is a sense of impatience everybody seems to be in a hurry to show improvement in the quarterly results. Unfortunately whilst many of the new age promoters don't understand marketing or brand building even those who do among them unfortunately have to pander to the requirements of the investing public and specially those requirements of the large number of private equity players who want the high valuation a brand can give but to my mind the question is do these private equity players understand what is a brand do they know how to build it that they can dictate and advise the promoter on what to do and what not to do. Do they know that that only a brand with strong brand equity built over time can deliver sustainable huge profits. We all know and I think there is enough evidence that TV is great at building brands but brand building takes time but it offers in return substantial benefits with sustainable profits in the long run. Perhaps that is what prompted me to tell Naval that I should be giving the stock not to all you intelligent media people in the room but to a set of private equity players who seem to be dictating where media should be spent for immediate result. To my mind we have seen that all is well in that world till the time the investor focuses on growing top line at any cost but as soon as as soon as direction changes on focusing on the bottom line the performance model fails in most cases then comes TV to the rescue thank you very much everyone for listening to me.


On behalf of the management of the Department of the Public Service, I would like to take this opportunity to wish all public sector employees a Happy Public Service Day. A day set aside by the United Nations to recognize the value and virtue of public service and the contribution of public sector employees to society. This year was a true test of your resolve.  As PS Public Service, I would like to acknowledge your efforts. You took up the challenge not knowing what to expect and you delivered. To our frontliners, our doctors, our nurses, firemen and women, policemen and women, correctional officers and all your support staff, your sense of public service reflected in your dedication, commitment and endurance. You truly exemplified the values and virtue of true public service. And for that, I say a heartfelt thank you. To all other public officers, whether you worked from the ports or from your homes, you kept the machinery of government going and for this we cannot express enough our thanks and appreciation for your efforts. I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to a very special team, the staff of the Government Contact Centre 311. You provide much needed support to the efforts and most especially to the public. To all public officers, I say the battle is not over. I encourage you to remain focused and always be mindful of your purpose. Once again, I take this opportunity to wish each and every one of you a happy Public Service Day.


If you're Asian and a designer, I'm sorry it's going to be harder for you. Hear me out. I'm Chris, a Chinese-Vietnamese born in the UK. I've been a product designer for nearly a decade. I found out the hard way earlier in my career to be a great designer you need to advocate for yourself. But self-advocating is hard, and I would argue even harder in Asian cultures. Luckily, I was able to break out the cultural boundaries, but I noticed this. Asian culture, in many ways, is conformist. Don't stand out, follow the crowd, speaking up is disrespectful. For many Asian friends, being your true self and saying what you really think is not normal. But why? We are taught from a very young age that we should play a specific role. No! God, please no! No! No! No! No! The model child, the model student, the model citizen. Our home and professional life are separate from the ones we actually want to live. This reminds me of a Japanese proverb, a person has three faces.  The second face you show close friends and your family. The third face you never show anyone. It is the truest reflection of who you are. This adds another layer of pressure on the Asian designers out there. Going against everything you were taught as kids. Going against cultural norms, professionally and personally. Considering how hard it is for Asian designers in the workplace, how do we advocate for the value of our craft in the world of tech? Where design is still an afterthought compared to engineering or the business. The stakeholder education is a fundamental pillar of being a leader. How do we speak up for people we design for? How do we push back on our bosses and other colleagues? When going against assumptions and hypotheses is being disrespectful to others. How do we negotiate for the salary we deserve? How do we be bold and innovative when we're used to being told this is the way it would always be? How do we think out the box with creative solutions? How do we find confidence to promote ourselves professionally? Where fitting in is encouraged and doing something not normal, unfamiliar or disrupted is frowned upon. Self-advocation is one of the reasons I am why I am today. Believe in yourself, be your true self and fight for what you believe in. Stay strong and advocate for each other, my Asian brothers and sisters. Tell me the last time you advocated for yourself in the comments. Bye!


Team keeping clean, what it do, baby? The same Graven here with another video. I just realized I hadn't seen you all day. So it had been a little minute, but anyway, DeAndre Hopkins, who a lot of us been waiting, wondering, seeing what's gonna go down. We done heard rumors, oh, the Ravens would be a good fit. The Chiefs would be a good fit. The Bills would be a good fit. The Browns would be a good fit. And then it was said last week that DeAndre Hopkins could start taking some free agent visits very, very, very soon. And he's doing just that now. Cause he finally got his first official visit lined up. And one of the teams that was said that they could be interested in him? No, it's with the Titans. It's with the Titans. And I hadn't heard, let me know if y'all did, because I didn't, but I hadn't heard anything about the Titans being interested in one DeAndre Hopkins. But when you think about it, it kind of makes sense because he used to play for the Texans. And you know, y'all know NFL teams, they can be very, very petty.  So this would be the best receive on that team. But at the same time, you gotta throw the pettiness in there, cause it's still a part of the game and part of the business.  So I wonder if this is a legitimate visit to where, or obviously it's a legitimate visit on the Titans part, but I wonder if it's a legitimate visit on DeAndre Hopkins part, as in he would be interested to actually join the Tennessee Titans. Or if this is a visit to sort of build him up, if this is a visit to sort of build the want for DeAndre Hopkins up amongst other teams. Cause y'all know how it goes, happens every year. There can be a free agent just sitting out there, posted up, chilling, ready to be signed, and nobody's biting, nobody's going for it. But then that free agent, we hear room, oh, this team's interested in him. Oh, this team's making a visit with him.  Okay, no, we gotta get one too. So then as all these visits start happening, the price, it starts going up. And that helps out that free agent, cause that helps him get that much more money. So I wonder if this is like real on DeAndre Hopkins part, or if it's just like, whatever. Now, what it kind of does remind me of, now we know it ain't, hopefully it don't end up being the same, but it probably won't be. But it's kind of reminds me of, remember when the Falcons, they cut Julio Jones? Y'all remember that? Nah, I'm not saying that DeAndre Hopkins is where Julio Jones was, but the facts of Julio Jones, no, they didn't cut them. They were said to have, cause they traded them, that's what they did, they traded them. They traded them to the Tennessee Titans and they picked them up. And it never really worked out there. I know in Madden, when I see Julio Jones as a free agent, I sign him, then I transition him to a tight end cause it's like a little glitch. But anyway, so I could see them being willing to go for DeAndre Hopkins. Cause they've shown like, hey, if you were once one of the best receiver in the league, you may be a little past your prime, like we willing to take a shot. We willing to take a shot. And with DeAndre Hopkins, if he passes prime, yeah, probably more so on a closer to the back end, but it ain't like he's just sorry receiving them, like DeAndre Hopkins, DeAndre Hopkins, the man can still play. Last year, no year, he did have some injuries and whatnot, he missed some time, he had the suspension too, but he can still play. Now, there's been a lot of talk.  When DeAndre Hopkins got cut, I had never heard this before, ever, ever. Throughout the entirety of his career, I never heard anything that, or any team questioning his character. I never heard anything like that before. He gets cut, becomes a free agent, then all of a sudden comes out, oh, DeAndre Hopkins got character issues. I don't know, it just seemed a little, the timing of it seemed a little strange to me, but hey, maybe that's me. But another thing that's come out is that DeAndre Hopkins got separation issues. He can't separate like he once could. That was a report that came out the other week too, and I'm thinking like, hold up. DeAndre Hopkins wasn't never nobody who was like blowing past people on the field like that. DeAndre, to me, he always seemed like a jump ball receiver, the 55, if it's 50-50 with a corner in DeAndre Hopkins, then it's more like 80-20, something like that. Because he'll go up and get it. He's always been known, in my eyes, as a really good route runner, just amazing hands, can make all these crazy types of catches, does not drop the ball, and can make you some insane plays consistently. But as far as him being a speedster and all that, getting crazy separation, that ain't to me. Hey, maybe I could be wrong about my analysis of DeHop, but I never really got that from him like that. So anyway, we'll see about this whole little Titan's visit, see if it's something real, or it's just so he could build his name up. And again, whatever it is, if it is real, if it's legitimate, okay, great for DeAndre Hopkins, but if it's for him to build up his name in free agency, I get it. I get it, it's a business. It's a business, like NFL, they treat some free agent players like the girl at school who nobody's attracted to. So nobody's attracted to it, nobody's talking to anything like that, nobody's paying her any mind. Then all of a sudden, one guy's like, oh, you know what, she's kind of cute. And then from a lot of other guys seeing that, one guy be like, oh, she's kind of cute. They're like, oh, you know what, wait a minute. She is kind of cute. You know what, so that first guy he's getting at it, then all these other guys, they start trying to get at it too. And then she got all this attention out of nowhere. Could that same thing be happening with DeAndre Hopkins? Well, we'll see. Team Keeping Clean, I love you all, I appreciate y'all. And like, it seems like DeAndre Hopkins trying to be when it comes to being a free agent. We out.


We were looking at perturbations of a interface which was spherical in the base state. In the base state there was no velocity in the fluid inside as well as outside. The restoring force was purely due to surface tension. We are ignoring gravity here and we have using variable separable solutions to the Laplace equation. We have guessed the form for the velocity potential, the perturbation velocity potential in the fluid outside as well as inside. We also have guessed the form for eta which is the perturbation at the surface. Now using this we are going to conduct a normal mode analysis. Before we do that let us write down the boundary conditions. We have seen earlier that the kinematic boundary condition is expressed by df by dt the total derivative of a function f is equal to 0. The function f is chosen in such a manner that its value is constant all over the surface. So, f in this case, f in this case is going to be a function of r, theta and t and this will be defined as r minus r0 plus eta and eta itself is a function of theta comma t. You can see that the perturbed interface is given by r is equal to r0 plus eta. Recall the picture that we had drawn earlier. So, any point on the interface is given by r is equal to the unperturbed radius plus some eta. So, by definition capital F is 0 at the surface at the perturbed surface. So, we have to this is the kinematic boundary condition and we have to take the total derivative of f and equate it to 0. So, the total derivative is so we are continuing from here. So, this is del f by del t plus u dot grad u I will write it as grad of phi the perturbation velocity potential and this is to be applied at r is equal to r0 plus eta. So, let us work out the form for u dot grad of f the second term in the total derivative operator. So, this in spherical axisymmetric coordinates would be del phi by del r into del f by del r plus 1 by r square del phi by del theta into del f by del theta. Remember that f is defined as r minus r0 minus eta which is a function of theta and t. So, I can write the right hand side of this expression as u dot grad of f is equal to del phi by del r and del f by del r is just 1 it is just the derivative of small r with respect to itself plus 1 by r square del phi by del theta we will keep it that into del f by del theta which is minus del eta by del theta. Now, recall that we are going to do a linearized analysis that is our first approximation phi is the perturbation velocity potential eta is the perturbation at the free surface. So, you can see that this is a product of two perturbed quantities. So, this is going to be an order epsilon square term if you had non-dimensionalize carefully and we had found the size of every term. So, this would have been if you had done the perturbation expansion this would have been an order epsilon term. So, I am going to ignore this term. So, ignore and so now our kinematic boundary condition was del f by del t plus u dot grad of f is equal to 0. So, and this is at r is equal to r 0 plus eta. So, del f by del t is just minus del eta by del t and u dot grad of f is just this term because we have ignored the second term. So, plus del phi by del r equal to 0 at r equal to r 0 plus eta. Now, this condition applies only to this derivative because eta by definition does not depend on r. So, we do not have to worry about this condition on del eta by del t only the second term is what we will have to worry about that where does this derivative get evaluated. Like before you can see that del phi by del r at r equal to r 0 plus eta may be written in a Taylor series as del phi by del r at r equal to r 0. It is not 0 here it is r 0 because in the base state the drop or the bubble has a finite radius. So, this is del phi by del r evaluated at the base state and then we are doing an expansion in r. So, you will see that there will be a second term in the Taylor series. I leave it to you the second term will also be evaluated at r equal to r 0, but I leave it to you to convince yourself that the second term will be an order epsilon square term. It will be a non-linear term because it will involve derivative of phi and then it will involve an eta. So, the product of those two is an order epsilon square term. We are going to ignore this because this is a non-linear contribution. So, like before our kinematic boundary condition just reduces to del eta by del t is equal to del phi by del r evaluated at the unperturbed surface r equal to r 0. Let me call this some equation. So, I will call this maybe equation 1 and then let us proceed from here. So, now we have found that our kinematic boundary condition del eta by del t is del phi by del r evaluated at r equal to r 0. But you see now we have two fluids. In the inner fluid the velocity perturbation potential is phi in and in the outer fluid the velocity perturbation potential is phi out. So, this derivative can be evaluated using either of those two potentials. That derivative has to be evaluated if we come from the inner side then it becomes del phi in by del r and if we come from the outer side approaching the interface then it becomes phi out by del r. So, we expect that for this problem these two derivatives should be equal. It does not matter whether I use the inner fluid whether I approach from outwards or whether I approach from inwards they should evaluate to the same value which is del eta by del t. So, you can see that the kinematic boundary condition now has two equations there are two equalities this and this. I am going to call this equation 1A and 1B. This is our linearized kinematic boundary condition. So, linearized kinematic boundary that takes care of one boundary condition. What about the other? So, the other boundary condition is the pressure boundary condition. So, the pressure boundary condition which basically says that the difference between P in minus P out at r is equal to r 0 plus eta in the perturbed state is t times the divergence of the unit normal and this divergence has to be evaluated at the perturbed free surface. We have seen this boundary condition before. Recall that P in and P out are the total pressure where they can be written as a sum of base plus perturbation. So, let me call this may be equation 2 and we also have the linearized Bernoulli equation. So, the linearized Bernoulli equation in this case is P in by rho in plus del phi in this is the unsteady Bernoulli equation linearized. So, I do not have the half grad phi square term is equal to once again the Bernoulli constant is not 0 here because in the base state there is a pressure jump across the interface. So, if I evaluate this equation in the base state it will just give you a pressure jump across the interface. So, I am just going to write it as some arbitrary constant plus twice t by r 0. Twice t by r 0 is the magnitude of the pressure jump in the base state between P inside and P outside the difference between the two pressures. I can write a similar equation for P out by rho out plus del phi out by del t is equal to C. C is just an arbitrary constant it reflects the fact that only differences of pressure are known the absolute value is not known. So, C is an arbitrary constant and you will see that C will get eliminated further in our analysis. So, the difference between these two is just twice t by r 0 as we have seen when we wrote down the pressure difference in the base state. So, now let us take this equation and work further on it. So, I can write this equation as base plus perturbation. The perturbation pressure is written in small letters rho in plus for the velocity there is nothing no contribution from the base. So, the base is 0 and it is just pure perturbation velocity potential. So, the same thing is equal to C plus twice t by r 0. Similarly, this equation gives us P b out by rho out plus small p out this is the perturbation pressure in the fluid outside by rho out plus del phi out by del t is equal to C. You can see that I can cancel out the base state contribution. We know that P b in minus P b out is equal to twice t by r 0. If I said P b in is equal to some constant plus twice t by r 0 as I have done here and P b out to be just the same constant C, then you can see that the difference between them satisfies this. So, I will cancel out the base state contribution. So, P b in and this and this are equal to each other. Similarly, you can cancel out the base state contribution these two and so we are left with two equations for perturbation pressure P in by rho in is equal to minus del phi in by del t and P out by rho out very similar minus del phi out by del t. Let us call this equation 3. So, now we return to our boundary condition. Our boundary condition recall was P in minus P out the pressure boundary condition at r equal to r 0 plus eta is t times divergence of the unit normal evaluated at the perturbed interface. I can split the pressures as a sum of base plus perturbation. Similarly, base plus perturbation will become minus this whole thing evaluated at r equal to r 0 plus eta is equal to the right hand side. I can write this further as P b in minus P b out in the base state r is just equal to capital R naught. So, this is just capital R naught plus P in minus P out evaluated at r naught plus eta is equal to t of divergence of m at r naught plus eta there is no hat. I will call this equation 4. Let us work on the right hand side of equation 4. So, right hand side of equation 4. For the right hand side, we will need an expression for n. We have seen that n is evaluated in the linearized approximation as just grad f. It is actually grad f divided by mod of the same thing. The mod actually is a non-linear contribution. So, the denominator is just 1 at linear order. So, this in spherical coordinates is just del f by del r into 1 by r del f by del theta. We are not writing the psi component because this is axisymmetry. So, that is the r component of n radial component and that is the theta component of n. f is defined as r minus r naught minus eta and eta itself is a function of theta and t. So, I can work on this and I can write it as 1. It is just del r by del r and then this is minus 1 by r del eta by del theta that is n. Once again recall that this is the r component or the radial component and this is the theta component of n. We need the divergence of the unit normal in equation 4 right hand side. Let us compute the divergence. So, the divergence of n is given in spherical coordinates by the following expression 1 by r square del by del r of r square the r the radial component of n plus 1 by r sin theta del by del theta the theta component of n into sin theta. Once again this is a standard formula. You can look it up in any book on transport phenomena. Now, we have seen that the radial component of n is 1 the theta component of n is minus 1 by r del eta by del theta. If I substitute it in the expression above then I obtain 1 by r square del by del r of r square because n r is 1. So, that will just give me a 2 r and then I will have minus because there is a minus in n theta the expression for n theta contains a minus sign. So, I have pulled that out outside and I write this as minus 1 by r sin theta. The expression for n theta contains a 1 by r. I can pull that r outside and make this r square and then I am left with del by del theta of sin theta del eta by del theta. So, this can be simplified to 2 by r minus 1 by r square cot theta I am carrying out the derivative inside and so this just becomes cot theta into del eta by del theta minus 1 by r square del square eta by del theta square. The expression for divergence of n is slightly more complicated as the geometry becomes curvy linear. We have seen such expressions even in cylindrical coordinates. It was the simplest in Cartesian coordinates where we just had one term at linear order. Now, recall that this expression has to be evaluated at r equal to r naught plus eta. So, at r equal to r naught plus eta and we have to linearized we have to retain only terms which are linear in eta. So, this just becomes r naught plus eta minus 1 by r naught plus eta whole square cot theta del eta by del theta minus 1 by r naught plus eta whole square into del square eta by del theta square. Let us linearize and retain only terms which are linear in eta. You can see that the first term. So, I can write this as so I can write the first term here as 2 by r naught into 1 plus eta by r naught. Eta is a small quantity because I am going to set eta equal to some surface deformation and that is a order epsilon quantity. I can use binomial theorem to take it to the top and then this just becomes 2 by r naught into 1 minus eta by. You can see that in the second term if I do the same and if I want to retain only up to order eta not beyond that I do not want anything which is order eta square eta cube and so on. Then this term will be evaluated just at in the denominator we just have to keep r naught square there will be no further contribution and it will just become cot theta into del eta by del theta. Similarly, this one will become r naught square del square eta by del theta square. I encourage you to try doing an expansion and convincing yourself that this is what we would obtain if we retain terms only up to order eta. Now, you can see that all the terms here have an eta in them except the first term. So, this is the term which basically comes from the base state and it will get cancelled out. Let us see how. So, we go back to our equation that we had written equation 4. So, now we have worked on the right hand side of equation 4. We already have the expression for the right hand side. So, we will use the previous equations to obtain an expression for the base state pressure and the perturbation pressure and we will write down a final equation. So, we go back to equation 4 now. So, equation 4 is basically Pb in minus Pb out and this is not really a function of r but I will still write it at r equal to r naught because in the base state the pressure is uniform inside as well as outside P in minus P out at r is equal to r naught plus eta is equal to t times divergence of n evaluated at r equal to small r equal to capital R naught plus eta and we have worked that out up to linear order in eta. So, up to linear order in eta it is just t into 2 by r naught into 1 minus eta by r naught that is the first term. Then we will get 1 minus 1 by r naught square cot theta del eta by del theta minus 1 by r naught square del square eta by del theta square. We have already seen that the base state pressure satisfies the relation Pb in minus Pb out these are uniform pressures is equal to twice t by r0. You can see that I can cancel out I can use that equation to cancel out this term with the first term. So, the first term if you open the bracket will be twice t by r0. So, I can cancel that out that is the base state contribution. So, we are left with just the perturbation pressures which in general has to be evaluated at r naught plus eta. But we will soon argue that using Taylor series that these perturbation pressures have to be evaluated at capital R naught and not r naught plus eta. But let us come to that later. So, you can see that in all the three terms. So, this is one term this is another term and this is another term all of them have a minus sign. So, I can pull the minus sign outside and then write this as twice eta by r naught square plus 1 by r naught square cot theta del eta by del theta plus 1 by r naught square del square eta by del theta square. Now, we have to use our expressions for perturbation pressure. In our earlier equation we have already obtained in equation 3. Equation 3 there are two equations at the top of this slide. There is two expressions for the perturbation pressure inside and outside. We need the difference of them. If we take the difference then we can using these expressions we can substitute and find that the left hand side of the above. So, I am just coming from here the expression for P in and P out is already available before. So, if I use those expressions and take the difference then it just turns out to be rho out into del phi out by del t. And now you can see where this derivative should be evaluated phi itself is a perturbation velocity potential. If you expand it in Taylor series the first term will be evaluated at r naught. But the next term will have a derivative of del phi by del t with respect to r and then an eta. Eta itself is a order epsilon quantity phi itself is an order epsilon quantity. So, the product will be an order epsilon square quantity. So, we will not retain it and so just the first term is enough. And similarly for the other term it will be rho in note that for pressure it was P in minus P out for velocity potentials it will become out minus in that is because there is a minus sign in the expressions for pressure. So, in equation 3 you can see that P in and P out both have a minus sign on the right hand side. So, that causes a flip. So, minus rho in into del phi in by del t at r is equal to r0 is equal to I can take the r0 square out and just write it as twice eta plus cot theta del eta by del theta plus del square eta by del theta square. Let us call this equation 5 equation 5. So, I have now two equations one comes from the kinematic boundary condition which we have already written earlier. So, we have already written equation 1a and 1b and there are two equations here from the kinematic boundary condition. This is because we are now dealing with two fluids both inside as well as outside. In all the previous examples we have taken only one fluid. This is the first example where we are considering both the fluids. So, the kinematic boundary condition gives us two equations. This is two equations and then there is a pressure equation which comes from the pressure boundary condition equation 5. Let us use these two equations and so recall.  Note that I have again gone back to theta we had called x is equal to cos theta but now I have gone back to theta using theta as the independent variable. So, then phi in is equal to some complex constant b into r to the power l p l of cos theta e to the power i omega t and eta was some complex constant into p l of cos theta e to the power i omega t. This was our normal modes. We have to plug in these forms into our three equations. Two of these equations will come from the kinematic boundary condition and the third one will be the pressure condition which we have just derived. So, let us do that. So, recall that our kinematic boundary condition which we have already written linearized kinematic boundary condition is just this. If I use this equality and equate the first two and use these expressions then you can see that I get the expression for eta I get i omega e p l of cos theta will indicate that as a dot into e to the power i omega t is equal to del phi in by del r.   These two are not 0 in general and so I can equate this and I can get one equation which is this. Note that we need three equations because there are now three constants a b and e a b and e. So, we expect to get three equations, three homogeneous equations in these three unknowns and the determinant of the coefficient matrix will give us the dispersion equation.


Hey guys it's Julia and welcome back to my channel and for today's video I'm going to be doing kind of a different video and I wanted to look at my old Goodreads reviews and kind of read them and look over them. So today I present to you, reading my old Goodreads reviews. Basically I've been on Goodreads for since 2015, 2014. It's not that long so people have been on it for way longer than I have but I do have a lot. I think I've done a review for every single book that I've read on Goodreads. So if you don't follow me on Goodreads, link down below, shameless plug. Let's go down to some books that I maybe hated or that I loved and see what I said about them at the time and see I don't know how bad my smelling was which I still always screw up on Goodreads reviews because that Goodreads reviews and they're spelling because I don't really care. Usually I write them just to get my thoughts down. We'll read one for Fight Club by Chuck Pollinock. It has a 4.2 average on Goodreads. It was published in 2005. It's a solid like a little bit over 200 pages. This is a 3.5 stars and this was for the Dewey's 21 I already thought. It was my fifth book and I was at 862 pages. Jeez, sleigh honey. I put a quote, so I let go, lost an oblivion, dark and silent and complete. I found freedom. Losing all hope was freedom. This book was, oh man, it really has an amazing twist. No, I didn't love this. The writing was nothing special and it sometimes just fell flat for me. Saying that though, the book had such a good twist and the concept of Fight Club was so interesting and that's the spoilers removed. I'm not going to read the spoilers but basically I liked the book. Like the book was okay but the ending made up for a lot of it is basically what I'm getting from this which is weird because I love the Dewey's 24. Oh my god. I love interrupting myself and cutting myself off. Last night I sang to the monster by Benjamin Leary Signs. I read this October 17th of 2015 and this book has a 4.18 Goodreads average. It's 240 pages and it was published in 2009. So I also read this for Dewey's. This was my sixth book and I gave this 4.25 stars. So I had a quote. So I've lived 18 years in a season called Sadness where the weather never changed. I guess I believed it was only season I deserved. I don't know how but something happened started to happen. Something around me, something inside me, something beautiful, something really really beautiful. And I said this book was really wonderful. Benjamin Leary Signs is an author that is so incredibly talented. This book was different. Most books that I read take place in a psych ward or a mental hospital but this took place at a camp. The camp was cool because you could leave whenever you want. It's like to help you build your strength and get help. Writing was amazing, beautiful, simplistic, etc. Our characters, so I like Zach. We got a really good feel for his character. His past was really sad and I just really love the bond with the roommates. Like it was up my beautiful which I love this book so much. Like I honestly don't remember writing these so the fact, I don't know, I think it's cool to go and look back on them. Now let's look at my review for Throne of Glass which I never continued with this series. I read the first three and I was just like nope. So this book has a 4.23 Goodreads average. It's 400 pages and it was published in 2012. So I read this because I didn't even write a review. Oh my bad. Ooh the Accent Season by Maura Fowley Doyle. I remember this. This was released in 2015. It has a 3.59 Goodreads average and it's 282 pages so I gave this three stars and I said and I read this October 18, 2005. 2015. 2005. I would have been like four. Yikes. I said well this was interesting. Damn this book was just so odd. I did enjoy the atmosphere in the field. This book had to. It was really raw and creepy and I did not expect this book to be anything like that. I thought this concept was so odd and interesting. You said that Julia. The characters were so dull. They were so so dull though. So dull though. Okay like the only one that had some depth was B. A lot of reading was I just really want to know how this was going to end. I'm still kind of confused by the ending but overall if you're looking for a fast and creepy read I'd give it a shot. Okay okay okay. Not bad Julia. Not bad. I see a book that I gave like a really bad rating. Ooh Drive by James Salas which if you don't know this is one of my favorite movies. So I was like Julia read the book honey. Okay so Drive was published in 2011 apparently or this edition was I don't know. It's so probably came after the movie then because I think the movie is I don't know. It's 158 pages and has a 3.47 Goodread average and I gave it two stars and I said well I didn't fully finish this one. I read over a half and this like skim read the rest. I love this movie though like love it plus Ryan Gosling so like in all caps. But the book was so confusing was so difficult to follow. Half the time I didn't know what was happening. I love the idea in the book could have been great so that's why I bumped it up a star. You bumped it up for potential. Aw I was trying to be nice. Yeah now I don't even care I'd be like one star. But the characters were underdeveloped and just odd. I really wish James Salas gave our main character a name instead of our driver like oh okay I get the movie didn't have a name but still. This book could have been great but Sally did not enjoy this at all. Maybe I'll give another shot in the future but at this point I don't think I will. Okay Julia the shade love it. And I read that July 12th 2015. So there you guys have it. If you like this video idea let me know if you'd like to see a part two in the future. I think it's interesting to look back on like my old Goodreads reviews and I'd love to hear some of yours as well so feel free to like link your Goodreads down below. I do follow I do like follow everyone back on Goodreads. It usually takes me like a few days because I don't go on it very often to be honest. I don't go on it as much as I used to especially because I only know what it like I don't even think I ever accept travel requests on my phone. I always do it on my computer because it's easier. So yeah thank you guys so much for watching. If you're new here be sure to click the subscribe button and click the notification bell to be updated for when I post new videos and all that sort of stuff and I'll see you all very soon with a new video. Bye!


Welcome everyone to another crisis conversation live from the Better Life Lab. I'm so delighted to have everyone here today. We've got an amazing panel to talk about when we started these conversations. We wanted to create space to try to understand what was happening to all of us during the pandemic. We were all feeling such isolation. Then as the pandemic has worn on, we wanted to create space to understand what it was showing about the cracks in our system, and what we could learn to emerge better and stronger. Now in this past week after the murder of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, just an eruption of anger and anguish about continued killing of black bodies. It's completely opened up this very difficult discussion that we really need to be having about not only the systems, the cracks in the system, but how the system itself is rotten to the core with structural racism. Today, we want to address that head on and look at how it affects lives, our work, our care, our families, really understand pre-pandemic during the pandemic, and then paint a vision of what do we need to do to move forward? How can we truly emerge better and stronger? Because we cannot in the better life lab, our mission is to create a nation, our vision is for all people across all genders, all racial and ethnic identities, to have the ability to combine work and care, and time for connection in meaningful ways across the arc of their lives. We cannot do that when there are so many people who are afraid to simply be alive in America today. What I want to do is start the conversation with you, Autumn. Autumn McDonald is a colleague of mine at New America. She's a fellow at the New America, California. You've been hosting conversations about COVID in the black community, and you have written one of the most haunting and searing pieces that I have read recently in the New America Weekly today, about your own experience. When we talk about we're creating space about what's happening during the pandemic and now during these protests, I also want to recognize that this is a difficult space, and I would love for you to share some of your thoughts and your story. Joy, thank you so much for having me, Brigitte. It's a pleasure to be talking to you and to be talking with all of the other women for today. I have like most parents been thinking about all of the different things that are of this moment, if you will, as it relates to COVID. So I've had my parent head on. I have a full-time job, a very busy job. I've been on multiple Zooms. I've been thinking about how to teach them and also be their parent in this moment. But this moment is not the first time that I've had really painful experiences as it relates to what happened, the murder of George Floyd. This isn't the beginning of that. It's constantly been something I think about. I have three kids. My oldest is seven. Just the other night, we spoke about George Floyd's murder and he was brought to tears. He thought that it was something that had happened a while ago. So he wanted to correct me as kind of like, no, this is, you're talking about the past. And I had to tell him that it was right now. And as I was thinking about giving him the talk, which we've done little bits of before, I was just really in pain, honestly, because I was thinking about the endless patience afforded to the men and women who went in government buildings with armed and screamed in the face of police officers. And yet I was talking to a child about how he needed to be submissive, how he had to make sure that he did these things and not those things in an attempt, not a way to fully protect him, but in an attempt to try to protect him. And it was a really difficult conversation to have and it was connected to other things that have happened recently. I couldn't help but think to myself that the week that California schools closed, that was the week that parents and teachers and district leaders were supposed to come together because in my second graders' class, four times in the last, the two weeks before, the N-word had been used. A friend of my child's told him that he was a slave, that he was his slave. And when I think about sitting down with him and talking to him about how to try to protect him, in some ways it feels like it's a lottery ticket. Like I don't have any true power over whether or not he's protected. I'm just kind of doing the best that I can. And I think of how people have viewed him. I think about when he was just four years old and we were playing soccer. And he raised his voice a little bit and so did his friend in the exact same way. But a parent told me that she was alarmed because he was being violent and seemed hostile, my four-year-old. And yet the little boy with blonde hair and blue eyes was exactly the same way, was simply being overtired. And so it's painful. It's just really painful. Yeah, yeah. I want to turn to you, Dr. Mesa, next. We have Dr. Nicole Mason with us. She's the president and CEO of the Institute for Women's Policy Research. And Autumn's talking about some really haunting and horrific experiences within a family. I'm thinking you've done amazing work looking at the experiences of Black families and Black women in particular and during the pandemic. I was thinking this morning that unemployment figures come out and all of the media and the president talk about how employment is going down. And yet the real story is that it's not going down for the Black community. And why isn't that in the headline? Why are we still seeing things through kind of a white lens? So Dr. Mason, can we turn it to you and talk a little bit about what you're finding in terms of how the pandemic is exacerbating already existing racial inequity? Dr. Mason, you're on mute. So I think you need to unmute yourself. Great, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Bridget, for having me. I'm really glad to be here and be in this conversation. I want to start out by saying that you're absolutely right. We are not with the new unemployment figures in the celebration of a very small drop. We gained 2 million jobs, but lost 20 million. I would hardly call that progress. And we have a long way to go. So and you're right to highlight the fact that Black and Latina women, in particular, their unemployment rate remains unchanged because of their disproportionate representation in the sectors that were hardest hit. This moment is, I think, an inflection point for many of us who have been doing this work for some time. And it's a culmination of what I see as persistent inequalities that have persisted over time. So the fragility of the economic of our economy, as well as the health care system, the pandemic has only exacerbated those inequalities that have existed for some time that we had not been talking about, but that many communities of color were well aware of. And specifically, thinking about women of color, women and families of color, the pandemic has only exacerbated their economic vulnerability and fragility. And before, I don't want to take up too much time, but one of the points I do want to make about this moment is that I do think it's an inflection point and different than many of the other moments we've had over the years in that I think George Floyd is a symbol and Amy Cooper is a symbol. Ahmad Aubrey is a symbol of what communities of color. And I'm glad to see a lot of white folks who are waking up and engaging in new and meaningful ways, but of all the systemic and institutional racism that we know to be true for some time. And the idea that we just don't have the freedom and liberties that we are guaranteed by the Constitution and that are fundamental rights. And I think it's a moment of reckoning that I think has been a long time coming. So at this point, I'd like to go to Kemi. Kemi Relay, she's the director of Work Equity at the National Employment Law Project. Kemi, when we were talking before through this past week, you had talked about when we think about policy, particularly family policy, that there is an anti-blackness at its core. Can you talk about that? Can you talk about the structural racism that has pervaded or created the system that really determines the experiences that they have in their lives? Yes. Thank you. And I want to echo my gratitude for this space and really also echo my gratitude to my co-panelists because I know the labor and grace and centering that it requires to even sit in this conversation in this moment. And anti-blackness, anti-black racism is the scaffolding and the fulcrum of economic inequality and injustice in the US. So much of the black experience is really shaped by a system that dehumanizes us and views black people as a productive labor force. And so as Dr. Mason said, structural racism is being laid bare for white people perhaps, but not for black folks who experience structural harm across so many institutions. Lynchings are violent, but there's also violence and harm when people's basic needs are not met. So lack of housing, employment, nutrition, healthcare, including mental health care, it's all violent. And I think about or expectant mothers, working mothers or working mothers, what is happening is also an issue of reproductive justice. A workplace needs to have safe conditions, provide adequate leave, but they also need to be able to be rest assured that when they leave their child to go to work at any age, that child will be safe.  And I think in sitting in my grief, particularly yesterday when I first learned that George Floyd's mother died two years ago and realizing that he was literally reaching for ancestor, I turned to a text that's been a guide for me, revolutionary mothering, love on the front lines. And they talk about radical mothering as investing in each other's existence and care and interdependence. They define radical mothering as the imperative to build a bridge that allows us to build across barriers. And so what's been really sitting heavy with me is who is deemed worthy, who is deserving of care. And so we're in a system that does not care for children and communities that denigrates black, blacks, indigenous, trans, queer folks for how we show up in our radical mothering and then simultaneously extracts us to mother and care for others. And so it really feels like the intersections of care and work and how we think about the nuances of how that shows up in systems and in the interpersonal is all being laid bare in this moment.  Can you talk a little bit more about that? What do you mean by care being extractive? Well, you know, I think to talk about sort of the present context is also looking at a historical context. And we know that jobs that are about caring for people have always been gendered from the beginning and have always been undervalued, especially when there are jobs that have been done by black women, particularly in domestic work and in childcare. And there's a deep legacy of systemic exclusion. So, you know, some of the seminal protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime protection, collective bargaining, minimum wage, excluded domestic and agricultural workers. So the greatest harm was felt by black women. It's something like nine out of 10 at the time worked either as domestic workers or agricultural workers. And so there is this way in that, you know, women doing this work have always had inherent worth and dignity. And it is through this pandemic that they're being labeled essential, but this labor has always been essential and underpaid. And, you know, one image that's coming to mind is this image of the black hands of black women incarcerated in a prison in South Carolina, sewing masks to be distributed for healthcare workers in a way that they're not able to use those masks for themselves. Angela, let me turn to you now. Angela Hanks, you're with the Groundwork Collaborative, the deputy director there. And when we were talking earlier, we were talking about painting a picture, painting a vision. What does it look like? How do we get there? How do we move beyond these structures of institutional and structural racism? How do we create really the, not just the vision, but the reality of an America that lives up to its promise of equal opportunity? Talk a little bit about some of your work and then the way forward. So I thank you for that intro. I think I want to take a quick step back first and just dig into a few things that Kemi raised that I think are really essential to having this conversation about moving forward. All of the things that Kemi discussed and pointed out, these are policy choices often intentional, right? We think about the history of domestic workers being denied rights in this country. It's because those workers were largely black women that they didn't get those rights, right? So it's important to acknowledge that racism is so baked into every economic system or democracy that on doing it really will require an effort across a number of dimensions. There's no sort of one single solution to eradicating systemic and structural racism because it's so deeply embedded into all of our systems. So I think acknowledging that this is a result of policy choices also leads us to the conclusion that policy choices are what's going to get us out of this.  And in that piece, one of the things we talk about are sort of the compounding oppressions, right? So there's policy choices that have led to a higher black unemployment rate. Black workers are also more likely to be deemed essential and have to put themselves at risk in order to put food on the table at this time. There's also a higher infection rate and death rate among black communities. And that's a direct result of redlining environmental racism, medical racism. So again, if we're going to change these systems, we really have to get to the root of what the problem is. So as I think about in my work and the work of groundwork moving forward, the work that we do is sort of thinking about how to build an economy that is affirmatively inclusive. And when I say that, what I really mean is not like, you know, the kind of traditional and women and people of color getting tacked on at the end as an afterthought, which is often the best that we can get, but really, I mean an economy absent exclusion based on your identity. And so so much of that is about policy change, but I would also say it's about, you know, reshaping the narratives that we tell ourselves about black people in particular. You know, again, it's already been mentioned, but so much of our policy and so much of the way that black people have been treated in this country is because fundamentally anti-blackness dictates so much of our policymaking and so much of our interactions. And so in order to have an affirmatively inclusive economy, one of the things you have to do is sort of rewrite those narratives that currently incorporate anti-blackness and really think about what would it look like if we centered black people in our work. My colleague, Janelle Jones, who I think is on right now, has this great phrase that she uses often, black women best, and what she means by that phrase is if we create an economy that centers black women, everyone else will benefit. And so we really have to start our policymaking there. Think about what are the specific challenges that black women face in the economy, in our society at large, and then build out from there. And because we know that black women's shoulders so many burdens are imposed upon black women in this economy, in this society, that if we do that and build from there, we'll really see better outcomes. Angela, I was so struck when we were talking before, we were talking about narratives, that there is this narrative of choice, that if certain people live certain ways, it's because of individual choices. And that that's one of the first things that we need to do is really reshape that narrative and see the truth, that choices have been very constrained by the systems. So if I could go back to you, Dr. Mason, if you could talk a little bit about some of the work that you've been doing at the Institute, long history of looking into these issues of equity, and particularly for women. As you look forward, what are you seeing in the work that you're doing in terms of how we begin to reshape the narrative and to understand a larger truth and how do we begin to reshape systems and economics? So this is a really good question. And I believe that this moment calls on us to reimagine an economy that works for everyone and not just the few at the top. And what that means is centering the most vulnerable in these conversations around the economy and some of the inequalities that have persisted over time and for some time. So I do, like Angela and some of the other folks on the podcast, I agree that this is about policy choices and some bad policy choices that we've made that have become entrenched. And it's also in my opinion about structural and institutional racism and discrimination that has become entrenched over time and understanding that people in these systems are maintaining bad policies. And so thinking about what must be done about that and also policy holders and makers as well. And I do think a large part of this, at least in our work and thinking about the economy and the disproportionate impact on women of color and communities of color is a big piece of this work is around narrative and culture change and this idea of individualism and this idea of individualism and choice and understanding and framing it in a way that is able to speak to the live realities of people and the choices that they don't. They do not have. One of the things that struck me recently was George Floyd's teacher talking about his essay about what he wanted to be when he grew up which was a Supreme Court judge. And I was really saddened by that picture because what I knew about George because of the institutional and structural discrimination and the poor education system and the other barriers that he was facing. George Floyd at seven years old, articulating that dream, he was gonna have a hard time being able to realize it and we know that he was not able to. And so that's the reality for many people of color and black people in particular in this country. And so coming to grips with the long history of historic inequalities, I think is really important in this moment as well. So Autumn, I see you nodding your head. I would love for you to speak to that. You do a lot of work around narrative and narrative refraining. What are your thoughts? Yeah, I think it's so critical that the voices of those with the lived experiences be elevated such that people understand what people are truly experiencing. That is in terms of the economic piece. We do a lot of work related to economic precarity and what it looks like to try to move the walk, if you will, that has been a non-inclusive economy to make sure that it is indeed inclusive. I think that when you think of what it looks like to lift up the voices of those who are experiencing this, it's a critical piece in having those voices not just be heard by others, by the peers, by community, but specifically the people who have the power to impact the policy, the grass tops, if you will. And we've been thinking a lot on our team about what does it look like to bring into proximity, what those true experiences are, such that they are moving the people who are actually influencing the policies. I love what I think all the other panelists have said as it relates to, this is not just being an issue of people being left behind or underrepresented. These are actively harming policies and practices.  And so I think that it's critical to just be really thoughtful about what it looks like to influence them, to change them, and to make sure that that voice is something that is brought center and centered. As we've been talking to people around the state and trying to understand their personal stories, but as I mentioned, I think it's just a critical piece to think about what does it look like to really move the way we operate. I'll add in one other quick thing, which is that we've also been doing these sessions called the webinars COVID in the black community. We've done three thus far. The first one was specifically about COVID in the black community as it relates to health disparity. The second one focused in on education. And then the third one was on the economic precarity element and what that looks like for the black community in this COVID era. And just in general, we talked about the historical context as well. And we have one next week on Thursday, the 11th, that's going to jump into COVID in the black community, but specifically thinking about community voice, civic engagement. And then of course we can't not speak about what's happening now, but I wanna note again, as others have, it's not just happening now. It's not like George Floyd's murder is the beginning of black people dying at the hands of police. And I think that the critical piece here in the change is policy. It's systems change. And it's also others pulling up and seeing this as their burden. Like racism and the issue of racism as institutional racism is everyone's problem.  And I see you shaking your head and I know that is not how you feel about it. But I think that it's just really critical as we think about what is it that changes it. It's when people are as alarmed as if it was happening to their child. I would love to see every white parent, every white person seeing this as if George Floyd is their brother, is their father, is their best friend. There's such powerful words, Autumn. Just like the piece you wrote, I think when we were talking earlier this week, I have been haunted by it. So I really appreciate you sharing your story so personally. And I think you're absolutely right that this is something, this is the original sin, the original stain that was born in 1619 in the colony of Virginia where I am right now, a horrific legacy through the years. Again, yes, in Virginia where I am right now, we all need to begin to recognize that and to work against it. Kimmy, if I could go back to you, we've been talking a lot about, at the Better Life Club, we work a lot on family policy. And you testified recently in support of a national paid family and medical leave bill of the Family Act. Can you talk a little bit about the role of structural racism and what's held us back? We are alone among so many advanced economies for really not supporting our families in the United States. And can you talk about the, really the sort of structural racism at the root there and how can we move forward? Well, I think that this also gets into, again, this piece of how gendered and racist some of the core narratives about deservedness and who deserves safety, who deserves the infrastructure to be able to care for our families. And so I see that being linked to the thread of, for so many black and Latinx and indigenous folks of color that we are seen as sites of labor, as sites of extractive capital. And the piece that I want to speak to is that in, you know, there's some level where in the space of, there's a critical side of work at the space of policy change. And in this moment, what is so clear is that people literally are the power. We are the power. And that it's not just about proximity, but that literally we are the power within the system. And so the ways in which we use that power to facilitate our imaginations of what is possible outside of these structures that were never actually designed for us to thrive, designed for us to be successful, designed for us to live as I think where I want to see our work move. And I want to echo what Angela lifted up about the critical nature of centering black people, black women in particular, including trans women, and that thinking about the multiple intersecting ways in which the systems compounds that population's ability to thrive. And that not only is it deliberate, but in those moments where we have sort of what we call race neutral, which neutral is often locked into cis white men that we're really thinking through who are we centering in this work? Who are we centering in the policy? So I didn't exactly answer your specific question about paid family leave, but I just felt really called to this moment that that is a strategy, but that is not going to get us to the liberation and the imagination and the liberation that we want to see for our communities. I love that notion that this is really about imagining what's possible, breaking beyond what the barriers are and really re-imagining what America could be. Angela, I'd like to turn to you. Can we mention power? Can you talk about the role of power here? This is really a lot of what we're talking about, systems to keep certain people in power, whites in power, white men in power, and how do we move beyond that? Systems of power can be very difficult, entrenched power, taking it on. Can you talk a little bit about the strategy of dealing with power? Yeah, I think there are a few ways to think about this. So in this particular moment, I think with the protests and uprisings you're seeing across the country, you're seeing one expression of sort of pushing back on sort of corrosive power that has oppressed black people in so many different ways across the country. So I think there's sort of the power in direct action and power building and organizing that can happen at the grassroots level. That's absolutely essential in order to combat structural racism. I think in addition to that sort of grassroots people power, there's also some urgency for us to actually wield public power in a way that benefits black people. So I would argue that right now we're watching all of the state violence, which is not an expression of public power, but what an expression of actual public power would look like was meeting the demands of people who are out in the streets protesting over being exhausted by the toll that racism takes on black communities. And so I think if our government or institutions, our communities were more responsive to those needs, to those demands, then we could shift the power balance. And then the last thing I'll say on sort of the power piece is when you're thinking about building an uplifting grassroots power, building public power, you also have to think about what it means to curb private power as well. So in this moment, whether it's corporations who are sort of crisis profiteering off of this moment on the backs of black and brown workers, whether it's, gosh, there's so many different ways this is happening right now, it really is important to think about, in addition to building that public power, what are we doing to make sure that private actors can't exploit and extract in the same way that they have in the past. So much of what you're saying, I just think about some of the past conversations that we've had, we had a home health worker on, she earns like a pittance, she's doing such important work, she doesn't have access to paid sick days. So she's in her 70s, she's still working and still making, she doesn't have any retirement, doing such important work. And when I asked, well, how did that feel that she has to make the choice if she's sick, and she's a breadwinner for her extended family? Does she go, does she work sick and potentially spread infection, which is against her own code as a carer? And then, but to make that decision, it means that it costs her and her family. And when I asked her about it, she just said, it makes you feel like they think you're worthless. And it's so infuriating that so many people, like you say, essential workers, or we've had, we've talked with childcare workers, how is it possible that when we talk about childcare and we talk about early care and learning, the conversation seems to be around curriculum and quality. How can we talk about quality when we don't talk about the fact that so many of our care workers, our early ed teachers, our childcare workers, they don't make as much as a parking lot attendant and they have no benefits. And there is no path for advancement. They don't have retirement. We spoke to one who's, you know, she's worked as an early ed preschool teacher for years and is so much in debt with student loans that she's actually thinking about leaving the profession that she loves. It's infuriating that we don't see larger systems here.  Yeah, just really quickly on that point about essential workers, I was on a webinar that EPI hosted earlier this week listening in and one of the panelists said something that I thought was really striking is that, you know, we talk about essential workers right now, but often the companies are really talking or, you know, governments or whoever are talking about essential work while simultaneously devaluing the actual workers themselves. So they don't see the people as essential. They see the roles as essential. And that's sort of like, we need to flip that, right? Like we need to make sure that the people are essential first and that they have adequate protections to be safe and healthy on the job. And so, you know, there are a lot of things that we think about and we think about how to reimagine an economy that would actually work for us all. And some of those things are thinking about like, for example, how you measure what a healthy economy looks like, you know, if we're focused on GDP alone, but we're not thinking about the facts that black households have one-tenth of the wealth of white households. We're not thinking about the fact that the black unemployment rate is almost always twice what the white unemployment rate is. We're not thinking about the fact that there is discrimination in housing and in healthcare and sort of across all of these dimensions. In so many areas of the labor market, care work is again a perfect example of where that's true. We have largely black and brown women doing so much care work across this country and yet they lack even the most basic protections to keep them safe on the job. And so, as we're thinking about like, what is the proactive vision for it? I think you really do have to focus on what are the specific harms that exist now and build up from there. So, you know, on the sort of labor market side, it's about, you know, again, making sure that people are able to thrive and making sure that we don't just settle for, oh, well, you know, the unemployment rate is down, so things are fine. I mean, again, even prior to COVID, if white unemployment was at where black unemployment was in March of 2020, we would have been in crisis mode then. So really thinking about the way that we evaluate the health and strength of the economy and then build out our policies to ensure that the specific harms that we've identified are the ones that we're addressing. Those are such important points.  I want to thank everyone for sticking with us. This is such an important conversation and I know we've gone over and Dr. Mason had a hard stop at 130, so I told her to go ahead and leave. But I'm so grateful to have her here. So grateful to have all of you here. But I wanted to close out. I want to turn back with you to you, Autumn. You know, just because, again, the story that you wrote has just really, like I say, it's really stuck with me. You talk about talking to your son and how he was thinking you were talking about back then and you had to tell him that, no, this is now. You know, as you think about where we are and how we move forward and you know, you think about your young children, you know, what's your vision for how we move forward here? You talked about how it's so important to center the lived experiences of people and particularly people of color, you know, in the policies and really see that kind of, see, respect and value that experience in those lives. You know, tell us where we go from here. Yeah, so, you know, I think about my work hat. And so my work hat thinks about like these larger issues that I know Angela just mentioned this idea like stakeholder capitalism and new capitalism, this idea of like, what is a good job and what is a good employer and what are their responsibilities? What is business's responsibility to the people that they employ, to, you know, the brown, the black, that everyone who they are bringing in as people that they employ. When I think about the personal hat, I think of myself as someone who has a seven, five and three year old and I think about their futures. I think about my daughter who just days after that whole conversation with my son said, I thought this was handled in kindergarten. I guess they learn about community helpers and so police officers are community helpers and she was like, but that's a community helper. And she said, but I thought Martin Luther King handled this. Like I thought this was done. And so I think that, you know, people need to know obviously that it's not done. I think that people who are not maybe as directly connected to it need to think about how they are educating the folks that they are in their circles. And I think that we need to be mindful about what it looks like when we think about going forward the world that we wanna live in and the role that we each play in that. And I also just wanted to hook into that piece that can be mentioned as it relates to power, which is that while I am definitely trying to pass the torch to like the shouldn't be the burden of those who are burdened, I think that there is this piece that it is equally the responsibility of everybody who kind of walks this earth. But I think that there is this piece about also owning the power that all of us have who are within the Black community, within the Latinx community, within the Indigenous community, within all of these communities that are feeling this. I would like to end with that feeling of we have the power, this is the moment, we should absolutely not squander this chance to change things that have been for a long time, but they don't have to be. So we have to do something about it. So stand in that power, everyone. Excellent, and on that note, I would love to just thank you all again for being part of this conversation, recognizing that it comes at a very difficult time. And I really appreciate and I think we've learned so much. And I think this is such an important conversation to continue having, to reshape, re-imagine, and reclaim that power for a real, the vision of America that we all want that's inclusive and decent and dignified for all people. So I wanna thank you again for being part of this. I'd love to thank the participants for being here and sharing conversation and stories in the chat. I'm sorry we didn't have a chance to bring you on, but our panelists were just so riveting. Again, thanks to the New America Events Team, the Better Life Lab team, David Shulman, the producer. Next week we will be talking about returning to work, but I think what we'll be doing as well is very intentionally making sure that everything that we do is really committed to fighting structural racism in absolutely every corner. So thank you again for your time. All of you stay safe and healthy, be well. And until next week, thank you.