40 here. One thing that happens when a lot of people get into recovery or get religion, they really start looking down on gossip. And gossip is something that can absolutely save your life. I was just out for a walkabout and I happened to tune into this article from Wyatt by some bloke talking about how reality TV saved his life. But how did reality TV saved his life? It connected him to people he became intrigued by and cared about. We only gossip about people who are significant to us. So the people who come by morning minion at synagogue asking for money, pretty much nobody gossips about them except to say, you know, warn you about some dangerous bloke and maybe he's banned from the shore. But other than that, you don't gossip about people who are way below you. So if you're interested in the leaders of Black Lives Matter or Antifa or Nick Fuentes or Richard Spencer or Ethan Rowell for this dream or that e-personality or that reality star or that actor, it means that you care about people.  But you're not really a part of your community until people gossip about you, right? You're not really a member of a shore, not member of a community until people are gossiping about you. So that's the normal path to human connection. And so to completely abstain from gossip is incredibly self-destructive. We need to gossip for information and for connection, right? It's a great way to connect. Now, that doesn't mean that you disclose everything, all right? So when people tell me something on the QT, I keep it in the vault.  If you have some gossip going, right, in your gym, all right, that means that you're connected to people in your gym. If you have gossip going about people that you go to church with, it means that you're connected to people in your church community. If you gossip about people you go to synagogue with, all right? That means that you're connected to people in your synagogue community. Okay, I forgot to send out invites, all right, for the hordes of people who want to come on the stream. So here is interview once again with Renee DeResta, online ecosystems, disinformation, censorship debates. At that moment, while somebody tries to figure out what's going on, and then inform, I thought, this is fantastic. This is counter-speech, this is kind of textual vision, right? You're telling the audience, here's a disputed thing, it's staying up, and you see it, we're not taking it down. But here are like other facts you might want to consider. So I started advocating much more for inform, particularly as Hobbit started in 2020, really sort of leaning into inform is really your best bet here. But then now it's all called censorship, you know? So now it's, you know, everything, everything is censorship. It's a very, it's a very frustrating conversation, I think, particularly as somebody who has really, really tried to drill down on the answer to the question, like, what is the best possible design in a system with no neutral, right? And I really have tried to engage particularly with critics, particularly with, you know, friends on opposite sides of this, with the question, what do you want? Right, because you have to be able to answer that question. What is the values that you want to encode into the system, into this platform design, into this ranking or curation system that you think is the correct thing to do?  Which is a thing that really happens. I'm sure you've seen some of these communities, like the, like, MMS Autism, quote unquote, curing nonsense, right? Okay, so I would not want to be part of a community that has people putting out messages that it's a good thing to drink bleach. So those kind of real concrete harms, I'm all for banning, I'm for banning people who dox, I'm for banning people who make violent threats, right? I don't want any of that in my community. I don't want people promoting illegal behavior, but I want a free exchange of ideas. I want a free exchange of ideas about voting integrity, vaccines, COVID lockdowns. I want a free exchange of ideas, but I don't want those, you know, most dramatic forms of their antisocial behavior. What happens when somebody's putting that content out there? Does the platform have a responsibility? If so, what is it? If so, what is the design feature or algorithmic manifestation of that value system that responds to that kind of user-created content? So this is, I think, I'll stop with my, like, so about surround up here, but really I think that is the question. What do you want has to be the question that we ask when people are positioning themselves as defenders of free speech, because it's not as simple as that anymore? No, no. Well, you're ranting to the choir there. So another thing very much related to this that you talked about recently is the motivations of bad actors, I guess, because within, say, those Facebook moms groups, you have people that have discovered that they can gain a lot of clout, you know, maybe make money by provoking and aggravating the very normal human fears and anxieties that are floating around amongst those groups. And we see it amongst the audience of our gurus as well, where people have a natural proclivity, I suppose, towards conspiratorial paranoias and neuroses. And there are people out there who are not, you know, agents for Russia or some other, that they don't necessarily have a coherent agenda, but they've certainly learned that you can get clout, you can become popular, and perhaps make money by provoking those fears through a whole spectrum of stuff. I guess you call it misinformation, but it can just be very highly tortured or twisted information as well.  That became really a central focus of the work that we did during COVID, right, which was exactly. So it was in recognition of the fact that, as you know, many of the most influential players in the COVID conversation were people who already had large audiences, but more importantly, audiences that trusted them, right.  There were the diehard, you know, vaccines cause autism kind of anti-vaccine people, that was a whole, you know, that's holding all of that aside. There is this phenomenon that you describe, which is often, you know, either sometimes well-meaning people, sometimes people who are profiting, sometimes people who want clout, you know, who are in their, expressing their opinion, expressing their point of view. Okay, so I'm often letting people express their point of view, but an interesting article here in Wired, how reality TV saved my life. Yeah, becoming invested in people, right, caring about people, loving people, it's a great way to turn your life around. So he went to a Bravo convention. That's the taste of that devotion. When I remarked to a woman from California that the most recent season of the Real Housewives of Atlanta is a far cry from the show's pioneering early days. She pauses for a beat, sizes me up. It's still everything, she says. This is no place for non-believers. Loyalty is a requirement in the kingdom of Bravo, but not only that. As one development exec behind Love Is Blind puts it to me, fans want to be involved themselves.  Darby's divorce was a major plot point last season. The audience lets out a collective gasp. My initial reaction, oh, shit, dissolves in an instant because I can't escape the fact that I secretly love that this is happening, which is maybe the point, which is maybe exactly the point. This is what makes reality... Right, so for a lot of people who are depressed, running low on energy, it's a absolutely great thing to get something that you care about into your life. So speaking of caring, we've got Duvid back on the show. Duvid, how are you? I'm good for show. So what's, what's to do with you? Don't think I've spoken to you for a couple of weeks. Um, nothing much. I just got to Shavu's tomorrow night. You've been keeping busy working, studying. And have you done any streaming? I'm still doing my regular streaming, although, uh, you know, my networking is, uh, declined. So I was actively trying to network more and, uh, and I stopped and you have still doing streaming. My numbers are about the same. And what have you been talking about? Mostly science, consciousness, uh, spirituality, just topics that interest me. And, uh, you know, my chat is diminished, although my numbers are about the same, maybe picking up. So like, people are definitely watching my videos, although you're not much interaction. There was a Huknasa Safer Torah in a new, uh, new community. I live streamed that out, uh, you know, like Habbad ventured into a new area of the suburbs where there's not much Judaism towards where Michael lives. And, uh, someone donated a Safer Torah and, uh, you know, they finished it. So I went out to that event and, uh, I had Elliot on actually last night, you know, he stepped up his book selling. So we were talking about, uh, selling books. And how's, uh, how's your prodigy, Michael? How's he coming along? Um, I'm not sure he's been busy. So we, we streamed each, we streamed, we were streaming weekly for, for three weeks.  Um, and so I guess he's just busy. Although I did put him to work. He helped out by my parents house.  So my dad has this library that, uh, like he expanded, uh, an area of the house and set up like, uh, 20 new bookshelves. Uh, so, uh, we've had a lot of books, you know, like boxed up in various parts of the houses and the construction finally finished. And now we got like 20 new bookshelves. And so, uh, my parents paid Michael to, uh, help move some books, uh, around the house. So he was out at my parents house twice this week. And my parents are about halfway between where, uh, me and me and him love. Okay, great. So my, my subject topic for tonight was inspired by a story I saw in Wired magazine. This guy talked about how reality TV saved his life because he was really depressed. All his relationships had fallen through. And what got him excited and connected again was watching reality TV because he could really, uh, resonate with the people there. And we have a form of reality TV going on with, you know, our streaming world. And, uh, I'm just making the point that you only gossip about people that you have some investment in. So people that you don't care about at all, you don't, you don't waste your breath gossiping about, but it's kind of wired into us that we need to, to gossip for connection and we need to gossip for information. And you can get, you know, wired into a community through gossip.  So like everything else is very much a two-edged sword. There are no solutions in life.  So what role has gossip played in your life, David? Generally, I've avoided it. Um, you're certainly Jewish circles. It's much more different because you look, we're always getting together and we always see people. We know people like, uh, you know, the larger American impersonal, Goyesh world is pretty impersonal. So I could see gossip having more value, but, um, you know, so like now in the last few years where I've kind of sank into isolation, uh, like I might stream, try to find people who just want to talk about topics, but, uh, like I don't really have any personal relationships with anybody. Um, you know, so I could see like trying to make friends or get into some sort of circle, break grounds, uh, gossip could be valuable. So I don't know if you want to split it up, you know, to dissect the issue, you know, Orthodox Judaism where gossip is frowned upon and their rules, but the uniqueness of Orthodox culture where you have a strong community and like everybody's always in each other's face, uh, where gossip might be different than the larger impersonal world where it's hard to, uh, you know, break the barrier and meet people and gossip could kind of like, uh, you know, break that barrier where you have some sort of personal information about people. Yeah, either one, but let's just start with you.  You talked about you don't feel connected to anyone. So, uh, gossip, isn't gossip a way to, to start forming connections? I mean, you can also engage in gossip that destroys connections, but, uh, it's kind of an austere life to not be connected to people. Is it not? It depends what you mean connected. You mean like emotionally connected. So it's like, you know, I've known Michael two months now and we spoke largely just the facts. And I like the relation because when we speak, we largely just speak purely about Judaism. So, uh, I've not really asked him that many or even any personal questions about himself. Like, you know, his history, who his friends are, um, you'll kind of like need to know basis. And you're for having like a person of purposeful, your progress driven life, it could be better to keep people at an arms distance and, uh, not have that much information about them. So I'm being like sad, like, oh, isn't it lonely? You don't have like deep emotional connections to people. But you could still have professional relations with people.  So I mean, generally that's my strategy. And, uh, however I suffer loneliness, uh, you're due to that. So as advantages and disadvantages, advantages that, uh, you're basically, I just sit and read and study and keep on point and focus and only have relations that have some sort of practical mutual benefit and you avoid the drama and, uh, you know, the downside is, uh, isolation and loneliness. Right. So you just, you said a lot there.  But I don't understand a purpose driven life that's not connected to other people. I mean, when I read a book, a great deal of what gives me the, the strength and the enthusiasm to read the book is because I then want to talk about it with people like concrete people, people I see face to face. Like if I didn't have people who I was, you know, emotional about, I, it would be much, it would be 10, 20, 50, 100 times harder for me to get emotional about a book. Right. Books have meaning to me because I can talk about them with people. Uh, you know, beautiful scenery has meaning to me because I can talk about it with people. Uh, you know, making money is meaningful to me because it enables me to see more people. So I just can't relate to a purpose driven life where the purpose isn't primarily people building relations with, with people, developing connections with people. I mean, that's, that's the, the fuel for, for everything. Like I've been getting up around 4am a lot of mornings and doing some work on my blog and then, you know, going out making money and then coming home and doing some live streaming and then, you know, lifting weights and doing some exercise. And so I, I get to have, you know, a ton of passion because I'm connected with people who I, who I care about and I see if I didn't see people that I really cared about on a daily basis and I've had that circumstance way too often in my life that I just feel absolutely drained in energy. So perhaps you can talk to me about how, how does one have a purpose driven life if people aren't the purpose. I had to type it in to see who the quote came from. And I was actually surprised that it's Eleanor Roosevelt with the, you know, great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people and gossip is largely related to people, maybe somewhat related to events occurring among people. So I like ideas. We've been talking for a few years now, almost exclusively about ideas. Very rarely do we discuss people, very rarely, you know, almost never do I ask you about personal things except in relationship to ideas or topics. I might, you know, ask you like personal questions about your belief system, you know, in relation, because we talk about those kind of ideas, but you know, a few years now, like I've never really dealt that much in to ask you that many personal questions.  Then it relates back to what we were talking last time about taking instruction.  So you'll let's take instruction.  So I assume you've heard the Eleanor Roosevelt quote and I don't know if you have a reaction to that. Yeah, yeah, I've heard it. I think it's completely wrong. I think anyone who doesn't care about people is just, it's just sadly, sadly, lacking in humanity. And if you care about people, then you're going to be interested in talking about people. You can't care about something and not want to talk about it. So I think she's completely wrong that what she's describing is, you know, some conception of human beings who just are not interested very much in other human beings, which, which strikes me as sad. Yeah, I doubt it, because I mean, if you say like, Kara, if you're talking like, Pesed, you say like, well, you know, would you help a person in need? Would you be charitable? Or even the level of relationship to mean like, well, what is gossip? Gossip is largely useless information. So I mean, that's generally that kind of like, well, you, you want to know what I think is like, no, I don't want to know what you think.   I'm willing to listen to how you think and feel about a bunch of topics, where how you think or feel really makes no difference.  It's not going to benefit your life.  It's just that it's just a sign of bad character. You're saying I care about you more, because you're like, I believe in character refinement, I believe that we could become better people. And then we have to take the hard reality that it doesn't really matter how we think or feel about a bunch of issues. That's why it's called GASA.  Like getting that GASA would, you know, help you navigate that situation so it doesn't blow up.  You really need to take a shower every morning. You need to wear deodorant. Or someone takes you aside and said, Hey, your clothes are just inappropriate for the office. Or someone takes you aside and said, Hey, I know you think that you were saying interesting or funny or amusing things to your coworkers, but several of them have taken very great offense that they went to the boss and complained about you. These basic forms of GASA that it can be absolutely life saving for someone. If it's pointed out to them that they're unconsciously doing things that are aggravating, infuriating other people. It's categorization. You're talking about rebuke, not GASA. So in those case, you're saying like the person necessitates rebuke.  And that's not GASA. That's rebuke. So I mean, GASA would be me and you discussing someone else as opposed to directly confronting it.  So if it's a matter to say, like, well, I have this issue with my neighbor, but I'm scared that if I rebuke them, they might shoot me. So I'm, you know, I'm telling my buddy Luke about it and he's listening to me. And if that falls into GASA, if like, you know, if there's no benefit to it, like a needs to know basis, like I'm telling GASA about my neighbor, because I'm telling Luke, like I'm thinking of rebuke in my neighbor, but I might end up, you know, getting shot, God forbid or something like that. But I don't see if you see what I'm saying, like, that's not GASA, that's rebuke. I disagree, but you made your point. Let me just, I put into Google is GASA good. And here's what comes up. So for benefits of GASA being that keep you stress free, this is the top, top answer in Google. Google GASA helps build great bonds. So GASA is a form of connection. It also releases feel good hormones like serotonin. We are social creatures. We are actually wired towards GASA. So GASA helps us understand who's trustworthy and who might help us survive oxytocin. The bonding hormone is also released in the body during GASA. That's why it helps build trust and a better bond. It generates empathy. So sharing experiences of hurt by another person with someone close can help lessen the difficult emotions there by reducing the burden of shame. Helps in problem solving. If you're going through a tough situation or you see your friends in a tough situation and you can offer help or guidance or support, sharing struggles within a social or work setting with someone close to you, you might get a new perspective, but also keeps anxiety at bay, right? You've got things building up inside of you. You're bound to feel anxious and stressed and venting, right? Communicating what's going on will usually help calm you down.  Too much gossiping can lead to a group like mentality where you're afraid to do anything individual. You can become overly critical. So definitely don't want to be known as the biggest gossip at work, but just looking through Google right now is gossip good. Next result, NBC News. Psychologists say gossiping is a social skill. I had a good gossiper, someone who people trust with information, someone who uses that information in a responsible way. BBC, why gossiping at work is good for you. While some gossip can be petty and unprofessional, other types of gossiping can be fun, normal, even healthy and productive. Next result, academic study. Gossip drives social bonds and helps people to learn. Next academic study, spread the word. Gossip can be good for you. Positive psychology. What is positive gossip? Then the Atlantic. Gossiping is good. Time magazine. Why do people gossip? Here's what science says. Gossip staves off loneliness and anxiety, facilitates bonding and closeness. Next result, gossiping is scientifically proven to be good for us. It's a form of vicarious learning.  So if you do it the right way, there's no need to feel guilty about it. So any thoughts of why all these different media and academic organizations are making the argument that gossip is good for you, David?  Gossip, is that really less or less, in order to do the sin? So I got just a natural aversion to you're saying, well, of course, gossip is a sin. I don't sin. But with that differential, why in orthodox Judaism, gossip is basically just clearly a sin that requires to be avoided. Oh, it's a difficult sin. The other Talmud mentions that like Lushonora is one of the sins that basically everyone's guilty on. But I would differentiate from an orthodox Jewish culture where you have a strong community, and everybody comes together and kind of knows each other, and you're more connected to people. You go, you pray to each other. Often, even people you don't like, you'll get into your close vicinity. You're like if you made a kid-ish or got married or had a kid, or even like a Sabbath meal, the nature of the community, there might even be people you don't like that get through and are at your event. And so there's not more rules about gossip and it's generally seen as a negative thing and even like straight up from Jewish law is just a sin. In secular culture, American culture is much more impersonal. There is no greater community that you're part of outside of maybe some work situations or education as a youth, and it's hard to break the barrier. It's hard to meet people. It's hard to be part of the community.  If you're secular, probably only have like your family, a handful of people you work with, or if you're an educational scenario. And then besides that, it's extremely difficult to meet people. It's extremely difficult to break the personal barrier. And so I think that's probably where the disconnect is, you know, with an orthodox Jewish culture where it's just like a sin. Like, you know, how could you possibly think that there's something good to gossip? It's a sin to, you know, that'd be like, you're saying there's benefits to like having an affair or something like that to secular culture, where it's so impersonal and difficult to develop personal relations with people where something like gossip could be seen as a beneficial way to make more personal relationships. Well, one, no more definition of an orthodox Jew, someone who abysed by the Shokhan-ar-Rukh, 16th century companion of Jewish law, and the Shokhan-ar-Rukh doesn't even mention gossip. Like, gossip did not receive much a lucky consideration in Judaism until the 19th century, when the Hafez Haim did something that was logically ludicrous. He took agarita, like all these stories in the Jewish tradition, and he turned it into halakha, which is no, you know, sound basis for halakha.  But as far as the Jewish tradition, gossip receives very little halakic attention. It's not much of a theme in the Gomorrah, and the handful of examples where you find in the Gomorrah any, you know, even minor attempts to try to legislate against gossip. So this whole idea that orthodox Judaism considers gossip a big sin, this is an invention of a ludicrous experiment in the 19th century by the Hafez Haim just taking stories and turning them into a halakha, which is no sound or fundamental or a real basis for halakha.  Like, how can I get attention? Like, how can I revolutionize the Jewish tradition? Ah, I'm going to do something completely new. I'm going to take stories, and I'm going to turn them into laws. But anyone who knows anything about Jewish law realizes that in the Jewish tradition, prior to the ludicrous experiment of the Hafez Haim, Lashon HaRah, gossip received almost no halakic attention.  So, I mean, you could say that about the Hafez Haim, but like, relative to orthodox Judaism, the Hafez Haim has been canonized, and Jewish law, the Shulkin Ark, has been encompassed. Everywhere I was in Yeshiva, Jewish law was always, except for some Hasidic circles, was universally studied with the Mission of Borough. And in most places, when you become a rabbi, it is based upon mastery of the Mission of Borough written by the Hafez Haim. So, I mean, you might be correct in the sense of, I mean, even the Hafez Haim himself says that, although he goes to great lengths, you know, to quote all the Biblical verses and try to show that it's Jewish law. But I would say that it has been codified, and the Mission of Borough is basically the modern-day Shulkin Ark, that your Jewish law, from even to modern orthodox, they probably straight look at the Mission of Borough to say, you know, what's the rule, and they look at the Hafez Haim, and what he says, that's the rule. Well, if gossip is such a big sin in orthodox Judaism, how come it gets almost no attention in the Talmud? It gets almost no attention in, you know, the various rabbinic codes, it gets virtually no attention in Maimonides' Mission of Torah, right? It doesn't really get any attention till the Hafez Haim comes along about 3,000 years into Judaism. So, the prior 3,000 years of Judaism, Judaism apparently did just fine without need to legislate against gossip in any significant or detailed way. Suddenly you have an explosion in the 19th century with the Hafez Haim, but for 3,000 years of Judaism, it got virtually no attention. That could be true by saying that's irrelevant for orthodox Judaism, because, you know, we don't follow the Talmud, we follow our modern orthodox rabbis, and since the Hafez Haim did it, I mean, the Hafez Haim is basically considered the saint of the pre-war generation and has been codified and basically, by definition, today an orthodox rabbi is someone who's mastered the Mission of Borough. So, I mean, even if you're right, that no one mentioned it beforehand, that the Hafez Haim has been canonized as our saint, Jewish law has been codified in his commentary on the Mission of Borough, and has largely been accepted universally among orthodox Jews. So, I mean, it's irrelevant whether it was what it was beforehand, because we follow our rabbis of the current generation. Relevant that basically someone invented, you know, a whole new way of understanding Jewish law in the 19th century with very little precedent for the preceding 3,000 years of Judaism, it seems to me that quite relevant. You suddenly had an explosion in the late 19th century from the Hafez Haim that virtually had no precedent. I mean, it was just radical, in a sense, as reformed Judaism. Yeah, but I was saying, like, orthodox Judaism to some extent is, you know, Catholic in that sense, and the Hafez Haim was from the greatest sages of the generation, and he was accepted, and the vast majority of the sages accepted him. And, you know, so it's not our position to, you know, predate and you're kind of like, you don't get to argue with the round bomb, like your orthodox Jew, you don't get to argue with the Hafez Haim.   Oh yeah, that's right, he did. Yeah, yeah.   That, you know, Mark Shapiro could write his books. But, you know, Mark Shapiro is an open orthodox rabbi. And I mean, that's fine. But that's why I'm saying from orthodoxy, like, you know, I lived in, you know, Brooklyn, and the Hafez Haim was our saint. He was on our milk boxes. Lush and horror things were on, you know, basically every wall. And there's not a single orthodox Yushiva. I studied 10 different orthodox Yushivas. There's not a single orthodox Yushiva I studied in that part of the curriculum did not include studying the Hafez Haim. So, I mean, you don't have to say like, well, you don't hold like the Hafez Haim, but I was making the point, okay, we use the word orthodox Judaism. He's like, okay, you consider yourself an orthodox Jew, but you don't hold like the Hafez Haim. And you say, okay, well, the Yushivish community, we could play around with words. But you know what I'm saying? Like, certainly within a wide spot of the black hat community or some form of what you're going to call orthodoxy, the Hafez Haims are saint, are beacon of Jewish law. And he straight up says, gossip is a sin. And, you know, I lived in those communities. Like, and, you know, I have the mission of I'm sure you don't have a mission of borough on yourself. You never studied the mission of borough. I have. I've got it as a virtual document. I don't have the physical document. I didn't have many physical physical. Whoever recommended it to you wasn't kind of like straight up like these are the rules. It wasn't like, well, the Hafez Haim, like you could disagree with them. But it was like, you're just like the Shulkanar, the mission of boroughs considered Jewish law. And generally, if it says that you should try to do it. Oh, everyone tries to instruct you in traditional Jewish life. Everyone's an expert. Everyone's trying to tell you, yeah, this is the way it is. This is the law.  Like most people have no understanding of history. They have no understanding of, you know, the Gomorrah of the ongoing rabbinic tradition. I mean, most people aren't very bright and aren't very loaded. But they often feel very free to tell you, you know, how you should understand or how you should practice, even if they don't know anything. So even plenty of rabbis don't know very much. Yeah. Even your local modern orthodox synagogue, if there's a question of Jewish law, the rabbi is probably going to, of any text, even Kabad, most likely use the mission of borough. Even like whoever you consider your rabbinic advisory, you know, I don't know if you're going to call Mark Shapiro, but I would guess in four out of five of the modern orthodox places, if you had some form of Jewish law question of anything from kosher to the holiday to praying to anything, the text they're going to go to is, in fact, the kafatskaim, the mission of borough. Yeah, that's true, particularly in modern orthodox or Yashivish circles, not so much in Hasidic Judaism. So your experience in orthodox Judaism is it primarily in the Yashivish crowd, the Hasidic community? Where is most of your experience? Mix. I mean, because my learning experience was in the Yashivish crowd. My living experience was among Hasidim. So I learned in Litvish Yashivas, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you. I'm just saying like, I spent three years in Yashiva, and like, I would have been thrown out of Yashiva if I said what you said. Like, you do not get to argue with the kafatskaim. And like, I didn't know who the kafatskaim was before I went to Israel. And like almost definitionally, like every Jewish law is the study of the kafatskaim.  But like of the most recent authoritative texts, it is the mission of borough. Like, there's more, you know, modern commentary from Moisha Feinstein didn't make a commentary on the Shulkinarik. He only made Shilas and Shivas answers to questions. The kafatskaim wrote an authoritative commentary on the Shulkinarik. And generally that, you know, like within the Yashiva community, that's the kafatskaim is considered Jewish law. And he's like, you don't get to argue with the kafatskaim. He says that that's the law, you know, maybe you want to send in, but you know, so that's why I mentioned, because we're talking about gossip, that in the Kasidic circles, gossip is not considered as bad. And a lot of people, you would say, no, I mean, I'm, I'm Kasidic. We don't follow the kafatskaim.   Yeah, no, it's good that you said what you did. We're not disagreeing. We're just emphasizing different perspectives. And what this brings to mind is that one of the biggest misconceptions in Orthodox Jewish life is that questions are welcomed, right? Certain questions are welcomed. All right. Particularly if you're willing to, you know, simply accept the answers that you're given, but also the questions are not welcomed in Orthodox Jewish life. So I'm not sure if you got into the same sort of trouble I did initially laboring under the misconception that questions are welcomed in Orthodox Jewish life that they're welcomed by some rabbis in some circumstances, like there are some rabbis who really like to engage with a very broad range of questions and who even enjoy being challenged. But generally speaking, right? If you're not careful in the questions that you ask in Orthodox Jewish life, it's going to read down to hurt you. Any thoughts on that? Well, that and questions are encouraged in the sense that like, yeah, there's a lot of things you need to know. And, but like in the sense of authority in the saying, you can't question the authority of the kafatskaim in Yeshiva circles. So you could question like, oh, I have a question, like, can I say this or can I do this? Can you not? And then the person looks up in the mission of burrow and is like, oh, it says here, you can't do it. And then like, well, you can't really like go beyond questioning it. He was like, well, are you Orthodox Jew? And you're going to follow the rule?  And then in Yeshiva, there's theoretical. So you could question like, I wonder why the kafatskaim says it. But you know, the authority structure is basically solid. So that's what I said, like your points about like the Talmud doesn't matter, because we follow the rabbis of our generation. And I mean, the orthodoxy is a tough word, but it's saying the orthodoxy assumes the acceptance of that authority structure. And you're not allowed to question that authority structure. And so in that sense, like some questions are allowed, other questions aren't. And did you get into trouble asking inappropriate questions? Or did you, did you realize what the score was fairly quickly? Well, I figure that out right away. And I ask questions like theoretically. So I mean, as I said, like as long as you don't question authority, you could ask. I mean, like even your questions, like, like, but doesn't say that in the Talmud or like these things, you could even be like argumentative. But in that sense, like nothing that you said wouldn't necessarily like, you know, got you in trouble in Yeshiva, except if you were like afterwards telling your classmates, like, let's lead a rebellion against the Cuppets Chaim.  Why do we have to follow these rules?  But I've even put like, even from the modern orthodox, the orthodox perspective, the Cuppets Chaim saying it is basically as good as the Torah saying it. Yes. Yes. And so like, you're saying like, well, exactly right. As the Cuppets Chaim says it, you know, like, well, you're saying like, they're all, I mean, there is like the theory of Jewish law and making rulings. But from the late point, you have to accept the Cuppets Chaim the same way you accept the Talmud and the Torah. Yeah.  So the entire, you know, Jewish tradition is essentially, you know, linked in to God in the final analysis.   And he would say, well, well, I didn't ask. It's different than to say, well, I asked my rabbi and my rabbi said, no, and I'm doing it anyways, or verse, like, it's a clear ruling of the community and you're going against the rules. And then, you know, so if you're in Yeshiva, or depending on your status in the community, you have some leeway to go against the rabbis. You feel like, well, I'm weak. I got to make a living.  It's like, these are the rules. You're not following it. You're out.  I know that I'm not supposed to do this by do it anyways. And then there's like the heredity, where you start saying, well, I think the rabbis are wrong, that you're arguing with the rabbis ruling. And to that level, like, yeah, I mean, questions are good, but questioning authority is not good. Now, here's another problem that I had in Jewish life, I'd sometimes meet, you know, charismatic, fascinating rabbis, and I'd want to become a devoted follower. But that there would be essentially all sorts of requirements.  So did you at times try to like follow his rulings? Because there is that like law and judgment type sense.  But when you put it, you would defraise it like you have to follow his rulings.  So did you get into, I don't know, some mixed feelings? I'm sure you've encountered rabbis that you wanted to be a devoted follower to, but then that came with substantial requirements in how you lived your life. How did you square those things? I played the game over, like rabbi shopping. I did my best and I was weak.      It was like, okay, like I'm weak, I could be doing better. I should be doing better. I accept. You know, we talked about the hand, the handshaking ceremonies. So you go to your local Orthodox synagogue. And you're either going to make after the services, everyone's going to line up and shake the rabbi's hand. And you're either going to make a public statement by not lining up and shaking the rabbi's hand, or you're going to line up with everybody else and shake the rabbi's hand, which is some sort of like public acknowledgement of accepting the rabbi's authority. And it's very unlikely the rabbi is going to publicly chastise you. It's unlikely that the rabbi is going to like even tell his congregants like to, to avoid you and just like, okay, like you're a weak Jew and we're all weak and like, you know, we should be doing better. But, and I don't know if you do that.  Or is there like typically like, no, you line up and you shake the rabbi's hand. I have not been someone who lined up to shake the rabbi's hand. I have not. I have chosen not to be a devotee of any particular rabbi. I keep, you know, I keep some moderate amount of distance. How about you?   So like, you're so like, why didn't I go to synagogue? Because you're like, I'm going to have that issue.  And either I'm going to line up and shake the rabbi's hand and the implications of what that means.  Implications of that. So I mean, if you're going to synagogue, if you're going to these places and you're publicly, and that's probably like part of the distance, why I have a hard time bringing myself to go to synagogue, because it's, it's that, you know, it's that moment really where everyone lines up and shakes the rabbi's hand. And not necessarily like anything on the rabbi, I mean, might be a nice good guy, but you know, the symbolically, you know, what that means. Am I going to fall in line like, like everyone else and line up and shake the rabbi's hand? Or am I going to publicly like make the statement, I came to synagogue and I was from like the only people who didn't line up to shake the rabbi's hand? Or am I just not going to go? Yeah. Now, what's your experience with being publicly chastised by rabbis? It's almost never happened. It happened to me like once in like a facetic camp. And the rabbi actually apologized because it was, I mean, very rarely do people publicly chastise you. It's that you know, embarrassing someone in public is a big sin. So usually they'll do it in private. And then, you know, you could try to like avoid rabbis, you could see the chastisement coming.  But you know, like maybe like your local minion doesn't have that like everyone lines up and shakes the rabbi ceremony, and that you've found a community where you don't have to, you know, either you'll go through that or publicly, you're not doing that. So in New York, you know, there were so many synagogues or you get that you could get the hint, you can get the feel where you're going to be chastised. Like, I mean, it's unlikely. I mean, you're doing something so bad if you're dangerous to the community.  But if you're frequently congregation or community, and you're outside of the community standards, you could usually feel the chastisement is coming, and then, you know, duck out before the chastisement.  I remember when I was at University of Michigan, he came and preached there. I forgot the young Israel rabbi that went on to be the head of like, yeah, rabbi wild. Yeah, rabbi wild, or something like that. And I don't know if he made a public declaration or if he called you in to rebuke or if you could have got the hint, if you had gotten the hint a little bit early, and just stop showing up that you could have avoided, you know, the chastisement.   And like over the next period of time, a list of things and like, you know, rabbis, the community, they could be like that.  So I mean, it's usually when you're actively in a community, and you're always there. And it would be the rabbi would be some sort of rep representative of community standards and very rabbi, rarely, you know, usually the rabbi has like a Gabbi. And you know, in Israel even, like I remember the story of, you know, it's positive this African convert rabbi Gamedza from Swaziland, the prince's son, who went to Oxford, and he said he was like driving down the street.  And he was like, the rabbi wants to see you.   But, you know, when I was in Israel, or New York, there were a lot of rabbis who called me and it was positive because I was a Balchuva, and they wanted to encourage me. And I assumed like as a convert in Los Angeles, there's probably a lot of rabbis that have, at least over periods of time, that have wanted to speak to you.  And usually it's positive. Although occasionally, like, I mean, if you're involved in usually, you know, you're involved in questionable behavior.  Yeah. Yeah. And so I've been, I've had rabbis seek me out because they wanted connections to people in Hollywood or in the entertainment media industry. So that's, that's occurred. Other times rabbis have enjoyed my blog or wanted to meet me or just interact with me, you know, via email or social media. And then probably half a dozen occasions, you know, rabbis have, you know, lambasted me, but not name me from, from the beamer, from the pulpit, because I would be criticizing this or that, it's going on in the Orthodox Jewish community. And so they would, you know, they would essentially blast me from their pulpit as I would then blast them from my pulpit of the, of the blog. So that's kind of an interesting experience when you're sitting in the pew and, you know, the rabbi out there on the beaver is kind of going after you. And, you know, sometimes the rabbis were right and I was wrong. So obviously I'm not, you know, this great moral figure.  I don't know if that's the only time that happened. Yeah. Yeah. I had several meetings with the rabbis like that, but often it would just be, I would break news, for example, about, you know, some rabbi who was a sexual predator and essentially his deeds had been covered up by the local Orthodox Jewish community. And so I would go after the community for, you know, just allowing this guy to be, to be a predator for decades. They would just kind of cover it up and move him on.  I mean, they just cover it up and let this guy move around the community for decades. So it got quite complicated and quite heated at times. Yeah.  Betray you. And I said, I didn't have that experience because I considered betrayal about something that was actually agreed upon.  And he's like, well, yeah, almost everyone I know at some point has bad mouth behind my back. And I see like, you like high T and Halsey been going at me and Twitter for months now.  But in terms of like, you know, being like authoritative, or like a good role model for what it means to be a Jew, if it was culled upon, yeah, I would assume like, almost any rabbi, including my own rabbis would probably like badmouth me if they had to defend Judaism, or in terms of like the, you know, the education of children, teaching kids and they're saying like, that's not our path.  And that they would be more than happy to publicly badmouth me. But at the same time, like say, you know, a lot of rabbis are very careful in their speech, and would probably defend me.  However, they would say like, yeah, you're not a model for like how they're educating their children in that sense. So I mean, that, I mean, when you, when you said betrayal, did you mean gossip and badmouthing as the most common form of betrayal, or you're saying you're getting betrayed in all sorts of ways? Well, people will always disappoint you because people are human. And so we will also tend to, you know, overestimate our outstanding with other people. And so you said betrayal, not disappointment. Well, disappointment, intense disappointment is often experienced as betrayal. Betrayal meaning betrayal is a hyperbolic term. And I don't believe that it's an accurate term ever. Betrayal simply means that other people have different priorities than what we expected. But people's lived experience is, you know, you will on a regular basis feel betrayed, let down. So you may have done work really hard for a boss, and then suddenly they let you go. And you feel, whoa, you know, I could have coasted on this job. I didn't have to work so hard. And I worked hard. And now they're letting me go. I mean, that's outrageous.  But you don't realize that, you know, the other party is making plans to break up with you. And so you're, you know, building towards a future that is not there. And it's going to feel like betrayal. Or a good friend says, you know, hey, I can't, I can't be friends with you anymore, because, you know, you said or did these things publicly.  And that's going to feel like, feel like a betrayal. So betrayal is a hyperbolic term that we use when other people's priorities are not what we expected. Well, I put it, I mean, if we make it personal, it's like, no, I don't, I don't think you betrayed me.  Like in the sense, like, okay, like we're streaming and I mean, like relatively, you were nice to me and you started me in it, but the hopes, like, I assume we both had much bigger hopes than we've achieved.  And it was possible that the success could have been substantially higher. And, you know, presumably we were both disappointed, you know, like the fame and the money, you know, did not come were both on much smaller numbers than the period a few years ago. And then even a level that, you know, we probably both bad mouthed each other on streams, maybe not purposely, but, you know, certainly in terms of like, expressing disappointment or even with your detractors or trolls in the chat that will get, you know, tell me how you really feel about loop forward.  And like, in that sense where a person could be drawn to gossip and bad mouthing, but I still want to put that at the level of betrayal.    I'm going to inform you about them. And I mean, so that's where you have the actual rules of the cup, it's kind of the complications. But I mean, I think we talked about then the past also, where there's like camaraderie and Judaism, where you're like an entourage where we could work together, and like a fake it till you make it, and I'm going to treat you like the person you're faking, trying to be than the person you actually are. And you might treat me like the person I'm faking, trying to be as opposed to the person I actually am. And then usually that backfires at some point, and like, I mean, reality hits.  And then I get back to the positive side of secular culture, because like if we go to synagogue with each other and we have it out and start bashing each other, we're still going to have to see each other all the time, we're still part of the same community. As opposed to the secular culture, it makes people interested, like, you know, it's like, who is this Luke Ford guy? Why are you telling me all this stuff about him? And then, you know, then you say, well, I want to see, I want to make my own judgment for yourself. And you form like some sort of personal relationship. So if I'm gossiping, even if it's a negative way, it could cause some sort of emotional buying to the person I'm talking about, where they're going to, and even happen with like John Wolf, where you're like, I'm streaming with his former streaming partner. And now they're fighting. And you know, it's drama. And people are interested in the drama. And people that were friends are bashing each other. And we could go over, it may not be worth it, but you're just the streaming history.  KMG, you're probably positive like that. I've never once heard you badmouth KMG. You might just say practically why it didn't work out. But like relatively, it was probably a success relationship. Any time you mentioned KMG, largely you just say positive things. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and this is very intense. There's kind of a sense that you're in the, in the trenches together, like you're at war.  All right. You know, the dynamics of live streaming on controversial issues can drive people apart, but it can also produce a feeling of solidarity. But I know there are a lot of people who'd like to come on this stream who I don't want on the stream because I'm concerned that it won't be good for them. And I'm concerned that it just unnecessarily complicates my life. So I don't know how, how choosy have you been about the type of people you bring onto a live stream? I'm relatively pretty choosy. I don't stream that much. And I try to keep it topical in certain, like in terms of service or, but I don't think anyone I've streamed, if I would say, betrayed me, even in terms of, you know, the negative interactions I've had that, you know, even like Brundle or something like that, that, you know, it's like, okay, like, you know, God forbid, like, you got a strike. I remember at that point, like, things were going good. And then all of a sudden, like, you got a strike, you were making money, you were getting big views. And your terms of service started getting more intense, and you'd be more careful.  And then you're just topical. That is like, it's my show, my channel, I want to talk about what I want to talk about. And you could come on, like, if you're interested in talking about what I want to talk about, I mean, do you think anyone would you consider anyone betraying you, even consider like, okay, like Brundle and Godward.  But I don't know if they like, to some extent, but I don't know if they betrayed you, like they were highly disappointed. They felt that their expectations weren't met. And, and they felt that what they wanted out of the relationship wasn't happening due to what they saw as personal defects in you. And they were publicly announcing, you know, that and then going through their personal defects at least a few times, even if your relationships, I don't even know if I would consider that betrayal. And certainly they did that to, you know, me also. But I wouldn't consider that betrayal. Right. So when I think about things rationally and, you know, falling out with various people that I stream with, I don't consider anything betrayal when I think about them rationally. But when I'm caught up in the emotions of the moment, then, yeah, certainly, you know, things, things similar to what you mentioned can really sting. And they can feel, you know, like betrayal in the moment. But then when I get some perspective, it's like, Oh, they just, you know, they have different priorities, they're different people, you know, they experienced things a different way. And so yeah, they're going to have, you know, different, different perspectives than I will. Your expectations. I don't know if you had any comment on the gossip, like, you know, like from the academic level, a positive aspect of breaking the impersonal divide, because like, and that's, I was concerned because we got into arguing about the COVID scheme. But I was saying, like, in the orthodox Jewish world, the impersonal divide is sometimes like not even there to very thin.   And to some extent, your frenemies might know just as much about you as your friends. And so that personal divide doesn't exist. And so the laws of lush and horror are more applicable, as opposed to the larger world where it's very impersonal. It's hard to, you know, break divides, break the social barrier, form personal relationships, and gossip could be extremely valuable, like in anything, like how are you going to meet somebody?  And, you know, so gossip would be that information that breaks the divide, even if it's negative, and you have some sort of end to your forming deeper relations with people.  And orthodox rabbis, they gossip just as much as plumbers. I mean, they talk about it, you know, that we're talking sharp, or I need to know for the good of the community. But gossip is endemic in orthodox Jewish life. And if you've never had much experience in orthodox Jewish life, it's just incredibly intense in group identity. So intense that for many orthodox Jews, anything that happens outside of orthodox Judaism, aside from earning a living is, you know, essentially pointless. So it's worth I'm saying, like you could assume that even if you have someone you don't like in the community, that they probably know everything about you that everything the community knows about you. And that even if you have a friend that your friend probably has an acquaintance who knows your your your friend of me, and the information.  And even the people you dislike, like tend to know everything about you.  And that's that's just part of, you know, living in an extended family and not everyone's cut out for it. It can be very intense and very challenging. But I would not want to live any other way. Okay, I'm going to start to wrap things up for tonight. Any final words, David? Well, did you have a, like I was playing in the secular role of you agree that it's much more distance like like really, like, I know almost nothing about anybody and like, like, like compared to orthodox Judaism, it like, you know, you look on Facebook or do research, but it's extremely difficult to like, break that personal barrier, as opposed to orthodox Judaism, you just like ask someone in shul, and next thing you know, you have like all the DL, you know, the breakdown of the events like the secular community, it's much more difficult or like at work and gossip, we've talked about in the past, we could wrap up, but like gossip is a currency, even orthodox Judaism, but anywhere, you know, gossip is a little bit of a currency, especially making friends or the dating realm. You know, if you're interested in a woman or something like knowing some sort of personal information, gossip could definitely help break that barrier. So it's an important topic. So I appreciate having me on Happy Shabuahs tomorrow night. And, you know, so be blessed and have a happy holiday. Okay, thanks, David. Good to see you. Good to talk to you and take care.


course on dealing with materials data. Currently we are going through the sessions on describing sampling distributions. We have considered a random sample from a population with a common distribution function f with a mean value mu and variance sigma square. Then we found that sample mean is an estimator of population mean mu and the sample variance is an estimator of population variance sigma square. Then we made an assumption that the population itself is a normal with a mean value mu and variance sigma square. And then in the last session we saw that the sample mean itself in that case is distributed as a normal with mean mu and a variance sigma square by n where n is the size of the sample and the ratio of sample variance to the population variance is distributed as a chi square with n minus 1 degrees of freedom. Then we went ahead and showed that if you take the ratio of difference of sample mean from the population mean and divided it by the estimated population variance by sample standard deviation, then it is distributed as a t distribution with n minus 1 degrees of freedom. Now you note that in all these case we have assumed normality in the previous case and derived certain distributions. Now normality again assumes that the random variable the population size is infinite. The random variable varies from minus infinity to infinity and it can take any value. So your population itself is a kind of an infinite population. What if the population is finite? And this is the case we would like to study here through an example. We are going to consider the case of a hyper geometric distribution for a finite population size. And we would also like to show that if this finite population size is very large then it can be approximated by a binomial distribution. Remember here the previous approximations that we have talked about is binomial distribution approximated as exponential or binomial distribution approximated as a normal distribution in which the number of Bernoulli trials were considered large. But now we are going to consider the population itself as large. Remember there we were considering the sample size standing to infinity. Here we are going to consider the population size itself tending to infinity. Let us start capital N let us say is the size of population. Small n represents the size of a random sample as always. T is the proportion of population with a certain characteristics say delta. For example, it is number of defectives, it is number of successes, it is so the characteristic could be defective, characteristic could be success. So there is some characteristic delta and the we know that the population in the population p proportion of population has a characteristic delta. The number of equally likely samples of sizes n that can be drawn from the population is obviously capital N choose small n. It is capital N choose small n and let X be the number of members in the sample with a characteristic delta. The question we are trying to answer is what is the probability that the capital X takes a value small x? What is the probability that X is equal to small x? So let us work it out. It is a case of a hyper geometric distribution. If you recall the introduction of discrete distribution functions we talked about hyper geometric distribution. So the size of population with characteristic delta would be capital L multiplied by p because p is the proportion of population which has a characteristic delta. So the size of population with a characteristic delta will be NP and therefore obviously n times 1 minus p is the size of population without delta. Now X is chosen, X members are chosen from the population because X members have the characteristic delta. Therefore X members have been chosen from the population size NP and different ways that we can choose is NP choose small x, NP choose small x. So this many ways you can select the X members of the population having a characteristic delta. The number of ways rest of the members have been chosen or have been drawn, they must have come from n times 1 minus p population because they do not have the characteristic delta and therefore that has to be n multiplied by 1 minus p choose n minus x and therefore probability of X is equal to X becomes NP choose X multiplied by n times 1 minus p choose n minus x divided by total number of trials which is capital N choose small n. We have chosen n members small n members from the capital N so that comes in the bottom. So if you apply the hypergeometric distribution expected value of X is n times NP divided by n the small n multiplied by capital N p divided by capital N so it is NP while the variance is this. It is small n multiplied by capital N p divided by capital N multiplied by capital N 1 minus p divided by capital N multiplied by capital N minus small n divided by capital N minus 1. So here the n n gets cancelled so we have n p times 1 minus p and this last term remains I think I need to I will show it more clearly. So here n n gets cancelled so what remains this remains actually n p 1 minus p divided by multiplied by capital N minus small n divided by capital N minus 1 and if you let capital N become large it means that if n tends to infinity you will find that this variance tends to this value in other words this tends to 1 this tends to 1 this is very easy to show I will leave it to you to show it. So this tends to 1 and therefore it is said that when population is very large in relation to its sample when the population is very large in relation to its sample so the sample size is not that large. Then hyper geometric distribution can be approximated by binomial because remember in binomial distribution in a binomial distribution with a n p the expected value of x is n p and variance of x is n p 1 minus p. So this shows that when population is large in relation to its sample because it is necessary here distribution can be approximated by a binomial distribution and then you can further say that when n becomes very large that is you also consider its sample to be very large you can further approximate. In the R sessions you will come across some of the problems that you will solve in which you will need this approximation. So now we summarize what we consider today we considered the case of finite population case of two possibilities of having a characteristic delta or not having the characteristic delta. We showed that it is a case of a hyper geometric distribution and then we showed that when the population size is large in relation to the sample size the hyper geometric distribution can be approximated by a binomial distribution. Thank you.


The broader theme, incredibly broad theme of energy, healthcare and environment and any questions that anyone would like to ask our speakers on these topics, sneaky double questions won't be allowed. Thank you. The gentleman here. And then Pete with some from the panel. Hi. I'm very impressed with what you all presented. And what I'm mostly wondering, how do you interact with external partners who are specialists in these type of areas? How do you make sure that you acquire information and look at the innovation that's happening outside and try to integrate it into the MSF framework and MSF operations to say so? Is that a question to anyone in particular? No, to the whole panel. Any volunteers? Whilst composing their response, if we can have the questions, online question from Pete, please. We've got one for Matt. A study in Bangladesh indicated that higher iron levels led to lower free chlorine residual. Did you see any impact of the iron levels in Uganda? And also one for Eric. Would the SOC system be more cost efficient in small hospitals like the one you showed in DRC or in big provincial national hospitals with higher O2 needs? Two specific questions, feel free to answer the first one as well while you're at it if you would like to. So on the iron levels, so it's slightly different because in Bangladesh that's high iron levels in groundwater which is then directly chlorinated. In a surface water treatment plant, it was the surface water which had high iron levels. It was then pre-treated with sedimentation, well coagulation, sedimentation before then being chlorinated. So actually what we were doing is in the first process was removing the iron and over the course of the intervention through the year, vast, vast quantities of iron removed from the water and then it was chlorinated. So yes, iron does have an impact on chlorination because it will increase the decay of the chlorine, because it consumes chlorine, but we did not see that problem in Uganda. Right. I can say a little on external partner interaction to start with. For the solar power installation in Shawana, we were luckily, we had most of that expertise already although we haven't used it much in the organization, so that worked out well for the SOX project. That became very obvious that we, I mean that's nothing we can develop ourselves or should develop in ourselves in the organization, so we really need that kind of external partnerships to get that forward. And maybe we can be the force to start things, to provide a testing ground and then assure that the product will eventually come back from our external partners. Where this would be most cost efficient, the oxygen production, I don't think there is a tremendous difference really. In a way, if you compare to diesel generator running oxygen concentrators, the highest costs we would probably get in a small facility where this is a large proportion of the energy consumption, then the liters per cubic meter of oxygen would be higher and the cost efficiency a little bit better maybe. But I think it would be equally applicable for a larger facility. And especially if we eventually could go for the high pressure solutions, it would also be more, increase the availability through the bottle oxygen. Thank you. More questions please. One here. Can we get any other questions? Can we get the mic in the right place please? Put your hand up if you have a question. Thank you. Hi. So Michalis working with Watson for OCB. I guess it's a bit of a white question, but maybe a bit more for Matt. So it's very refreshing to see the finally OCBs. MSF is going into less traditional health risks when it comes to water. My question is, I've seen around a lot of paranoia, let's say, as to added things into water. And then I've seen it specifically also with chlorine. I've seen people quoting studies on three hollow methods even when we chlorinate groundwater. So I assume you must have had some sort of health promotion campaign to go together with your handover process to share. But if you have such challenges yourself and how do you address them? And while you're composing your answer, if we can take a question from the gentleman. Yeah, everyone, I'm a laboratory advisor with MSF OCA. My question is for Maria. So besides looking outside for getting knowledge and understanding possibilities that are there, are we looking enough into what others are doing? Are there opportunities to have other people provide energy? I mean, I'm thinking my last visit to South Kivu, some Italian NGO was putting, I don't know, 100 square meters of solar panels on the hospital in Uwira as a standalone thing. And are there more opportunities like that to be done?  I'm struggling to get that myself in projects where we don't have AC and everything breaks down all the time because of that. Thank you. So, Matt first, then Maria, if you can put your hand up, if you have a question, please, we'll get you the mic. OK, yeah. It's a very good point. And there's a few things there in relation to that intervention. The first thing is an obvious one and relates to all interventions. I mean, the risk, the health risk from not chlorinating water and particularly surface water is much, much higher and certainly in the immediate term and that's why I make reference to the quantity and the nature of the emergency. In terms of, and actually everyone, I mean, the World Health Organization is very firm on that as well in most of its discussions about disinfection byproducts and certainly for this kind of water treatment. In terms of the acceptance and the community in that settlement, that was a very interesting one because there was another actor who will remain nameless who was trying to distribute water from a groundwater source which was not chlorinated. The population actually initially refused this water. They liked the water that came from the plant. They were used to the chlorine levels and actually to be honest, in the end what we treated that to was the fact that when we were monitoring in the camp in the very initial stages of the emergency, we and the staff with us were drinking the water from the tap stand. So the perception of the population and the acceptance was very good. And actually the impetus for looking into this issue did come from an allegation of over-chlorination from UNHCR. We had the data to prove that we were compliant with their very own standards. And then on top of that I wanted to look into this issue as well. It was not something, I agree people bring it up sometimes, quite often people don't really know what they're talking about but they can find some reference to a study, etc. And all I can say at the end is it does get fantastically complicated. That is for sure. But I still think it's an important thing to consider. Thank you. When we, of course when we have to decide which energy solution we are going to provide, of course we need to look around what are the possibilities that we have. Even if it's city power, even if it's what others are doing. I wouldn't say that much maybe to provide energy supply from other organizations because we are quite tricky or stricken in the quality of the energy that we receive. But maybe for example for the maintenance strategies or for the handover process. There are a lot of NGOs, development NGOs that are working a lot on rural electrification, on energy access, etc. For example in refugee camps right now there is a movement quite big right now in energy movement that are providing energy solutions. So maybe they are the ones who can provide energy solutions in training, in materials, in all these parts that we are not so good at it, but we need it in order to give some sustainability to our energy settings, especially when we do the handover process. Thank you. Short questions, I'm encouraging you to come up with. Okay. This is perhaps the broadest possible question and the answers may not be forthcoming from the panel. I really welcome this session. I think it's incredibly important. To me it's a matter of basic ethics really, along the lines of first do no harm. I wonder if you've got any comments, anecdotes or suggestions about potential barriers to taking up this agenda in terms of MSF organisational culture. Thank you. And you can think about that in a few seconds. I think then we'll allow one of our panellists to respond to that whilst we take another question from the gentleman over here. Anyone like to respond? Barriers. There are huge barriers in perception of what we should work with, whether this is in line with the emergency organisation and all of that. But I think we got a little bit of way yesterday with the session in actually concluding that, yes, we have to work with the consequences of global warming, but we cannot forget the mitigation. We must be better at working also with that. Please turn my head off. Very quickly. David, Sweden Innovation Unit. Welcome to Maria. It's a question around big project versus small. Canama is a big hospital. It's a big structure. Is there an interest from MSF to also look at so many more smaller structures that we have in terms of energy? So all the small OPDs and is there an interest to look? I can imagine it's a bit of a testing project also, Canama, how we can do it for big hospitals. Thank you. Yeah, it's true that Canama is a very big project and we used, it was when we were developing the energy vision, it came like an operational request. So we thought we could not have a vision without the operations involved. So it was the first request that we had that operation was willing to do it, to there to do it. So we just, okay, let's go on and let's move on and let's see what it goes, no? But of course, that doesn't mean that we only want big projects. The idea is to put this under a big umbrella. And this big umbrella, we have big projects but also we have small health centers in the bush or a lot of different projects that we can tackle. They are popping up. We just presented this one you know, a fancy one. But there are other that are coming up and of course the idea would be to see the differences and also in several projects its renewable energies can be a solution, but in other projects maybe not. But maybe we can use energy efficient technologies maybe work better on how we manage our loads, in order to not spend so much fuel. This is also part of the strategy, no? Part of the vision. Thank you. So it falls to me to feedback in two minutes, which I will try and do. I'm delighted that this topic is here on the agenda and being discussed and I thank our presenters for their stimulating presentations. I know three things about the presentations. All three are considering the consequences of our actions and what we can do better. All three are considering what happens when we leave. And all three are field led. These three things are essential for us to consider at the strategic level as we move forward in MSF. These issues haven't been at the governance leadership strategic level at least in my recent experience of MSF governance and I'm delighted to see them having increased prominence here. Thank you again to our speakers.


As a woman that is doing a lot of work for education, for technology, helping women to be empowered, it's definitely something that not a lot of people are going to be happy about that because it's against the culture, the tradition. And me as a woman living here in New York City, it's definitely something that not a lot of families are allowing their daughters actually to leave the town itself, forget about if they go to another country and leave and at work. So definitely having my family supports, it's the most important aspect that I could be able to come here and pursue what I love. So that's unfortunate but still if you have the family supports, that definitely helps you a lot to kind of stand against the cultural odds and the backlash that you will face in the community.


Contemplation phase is people are aware that exercise is good for them, but they're really not ready to make any sort of behavior change. And then there's the action phase. These are the people that are actively doing the activity that you want them to do, exercise, right? And then there's the maintenance phase where this is when they've been doing it for six months, right? And six months is kind of in my mind that critical cutoff, because we tend to see in, for example, diet studies, right? Diet adherence after six months tends to plateau. It's like 85% or something like that of people end up regaining the lost weight.