This meeting is being recorded. Okay, now we know what's working. Hey, thanks guys for joining us to talk more about trauma interventions. I am Steph Lundgren from the PD department at ESU 8 and I get to work with all of you lovely Paris every other month and for a whole day every August. And Sonya, do you want to go ahead and introduce yourself. I am Sonya Suckup. I am a licensed mental health practitioner with ESU 8. And this year I am serving four different school districts in the western part of ESU 8. And you're a frequent visitor here with us, Paris, right? I love the Paris like this is this is my crowd. Awesome. Well, we love you. So thanks so much for making time today to join us. And today's topic of trauma interventions really came about from the Paris surveys that we did in August. So this is brought to you by request. So, and I always an important topic of how do we help kids when they're in have lived through trauma experience trauma or are in those situations where their trauma reactions are coming out.  All right, well everybody knows who I am so let's keep it going. So the when when stuff approached me to talk talk about trauma interventions today I wanted to reflect on the things that I talked to the para group about before. And I wanted to get a bit more specific about some of the things that I have mentioned before but not gone into depth about so today we're going to be covering about three interventions that I think across the board are really helpful are really helpful. And I think also I wanted to talk about these because they, they work with children and adults who've experienced trauma. But they also work with adults and children who've not experienced trauma. So I think these interventions across the board are really profound in our ability to work with people engage with people work with kids and engage with kids. So let's keep going stuff. Okay. All right. Clear in our board. We got all kinds of stuff on our board we can't see you. Okay. No that's, that's right our screen is shared and then Sonya is that over to the side. Right, but it's covering up all the words. And you can drag that bar with the pick. Well, I have the bar at the top. So let me see if I move it if it moves for you know.  Do you see that. Well, let's just remove it for now. And if you need anything just just holler again so I'll I'll just get rid of that video panel. Now do you see the video panel.  I have one that says do you want to continue without audio up there and then we have another one that says this meeting is being recorded. You need to get the one about the audio is the one that's a duplicate that you have two screens open. So we can just hit continue on that. Instead of join audio we can continue. Yes, you need to probably just turn that one off completely. And then the meeting is being recorded. Okay. Okay. On your screen, can you drag the pictures to a different spot, or on your computer screen. Thank you. You bet. Now, if you can just make sure. Yeah, I don't know how we have two screens open but I doesn't seem to be echoing so. Okay, back to you, Sonya. All right. So the first intervention that I want to talk to you about is being with. Okay. The phrase itself may seem incredibly simplistic, but the act of being with is incredibly complex. The language helps us understand that there are six key emotions that is really important that we build the capacity to be with people in these feelings. And there's a lot of things that can get in the way of that. There are two kind of elements that are required to make be with more successful. Empathy. Are you guys familiar with the Brené Brown Empathy video? I think we may have watched that before. If not just YouTube Brené Brown Empathy and it gives a really great overview of what empathy truly is. And it's really our ability to put ourselves in the similar same emotional state of that person who's struggling. It allows us to tap into this level of attunement within ourselves to understand what that person is going through. That in itself helps us connect with that other person. The second thing that's really required in order to be with someone is vulnerability. It's required to be empathetic, to be a bit vulnerable. And if you're going to truly be with another person in whatever emotion it is that they're struggling with, you have to be vulnerable enough yourself to feel that feeling and be able and willing to handle what they bring you. Go ahead and advance to the next slide. So this I think is a beautiful representation of being with in the capacity of it's an uncomfortable emotion and it's hard. But this is demonstrated so beautifully. This is a clip from Inside Out. And we are going to witness the true power and what can happen if we're able to be with another person in their struggle. I just need to get back to headquarters. Which way to the train station? I had a whole trip planned for us. Hey, who's ticklish? Here comes the tickle monster. Bing Bong, look at this. Oh, here's a fun game. You point to the train station and we all go there. Won't that be fun? Come on, let's go to the train station. I'm sorry they took your rocket. They took something that you loved. Sadness, don't make him feel worse. Sorry. It's all I had left of Riley. I bet you and Riley had great adventures. Oh, they were wonderful. Once we flew back in time we had breakfast twice that day. Sadness, that sounds amazing. I bet Riley liked it. Oh, she did. We were best friends. Yeah. I'm okay now. The train station is this way. All right, we can stop it there. How did you do that? So, I think in this video it demonstrates how as adults, oftentimes we don't have time for the emotional outpour that comes with the intensity that kids bring sometimes, the intensity that adults bring sometimes, because we have stuff to do. We have things that we have to accomplish. And joy, the tall woman with blue hair worked so hard to convince Bing Bong that he didn't have to be sad. We have things to do. We have places to be. We have places to be. And Sadness acknowledged and recognized that he wasn't moving anywhere until he was able to express the true feeling that he was having. She was able to be present with him. She did a lot of validating. That must be really hard. And she sat with him in that really, really tough feeling. And when it got to a point where he had to cry, he didn't steer away. She leaned in for what she knew he needed as a hug, right? Again, I think this is a beautiful representation of how being with can be so powerful, but it can happen so quickly. Joy could have spent all day trying to talk Bing Bong out of his sadness. That would have taken all day. I think the power of being with is truly represented by meeting people where they're at. Being able to be with them where they're at. Go ahead and go to the next slide. That was so good. We had to watch it again. So this is just a true fact about us as a grown-ups. We work hard all day long to sidestep uncomfortable feelings. A great example would be when you ask your colleagues, hey, how's your day going? Our general assumption is that we're going to be able to be with each other all day long. We're going to be able to be with each other all day long. We're going to be able to be with each other all day long. Our general assumption and expectation is that everyone says fine. It's the one time when someone says I'm having a really bad day that you're like, oh, don't know what to do about that. What to say about that. And I have things to do. Sorry about that. Bye. The reality is on a continuum, we're not going to be able to be with each other all day long. We're not going to be able to be with each other all day long. And I think that's a really good thing. I mean, everything's good. Right. So if we take into consideration what students are coming to school with, specifically trauma kiddos. They're coming with a lot of feelings. They're coming with a lot of experiences. They're coming with a lot of heavy stuff that they don't know what to do with. They're coming with a lot of emotions. They're coming with a lot of emotions. They're coming with a lot of emotions. They're coming with a lot of emotions. They're coming with a lot of emotions that they can be ready to be with them in all of that heaviness and all of those emotions that they bring. So here's what I propose. What if we lean into those feelings. Instead of working so hard to sidestep them.  Got to go by. What if we pause for a moment. What if we lean into those feelings. We experience a bit of vulnerability. We lean into it and say. That's really hard. What happened. And be willing to be present and be with them. In that moment of difficulty. What if we do that with students. Instead of. Sometimes does it, sometimes does it not come out as like, you know, it's not going to come out as like like a, a bad thing. And then I think that was really sad and was sad and it was from a very understandably sad place. But I think about those kids that maybe act out and. And hit someone. Damage property, whatever it may be that. Tend to be on maybe some behaviors that get us a little bit more angry. Really fast. and just to be able to say to them to instead of shame on you and you need to not do that and you're ruining things to, oh my gosh, how does this feel after this? How are you feeling? What happened that, you know, you made you maybe not feel so good and had this happen? I mean, I think Ross Green says kids do well if they can and I 110% believe that. And I think when kids struggle, they're trying to tell us something. They're communicating that they're not okay. They want to be well, but they don't know how to be well. And I think as the smart grownups that we are, we have to lean into that and know that, right? Perfect example, I was working with a student this week who is just not ready to learn. And so I just sat with the student. No expectations, no reminding of the rules, just sat. No expectations. And all of a sudden, the student starts to speak. Sometimes kids are just looking for windows for adults to get it. And our ability to be with them and be present is sometimes what's required in order for that to happen. Yeah, some compassion instead of the harshness that we, maybe culturally has been the way to deal with some of those behaviors as with harshness and rules and consequence instead of just that compassion to be with them and to help them process what's going on and why it happened. Yeah. Something that may be useful is something that I still have to tell myself is that these are little people. And if they're not demonstrating pro-social behavior, if they're struggling emotionally, if they're not doing what the grownups want them to do, it's because they need my help. They need my help knowing how to do it and when to do it. And not only do I have to teach them, I have to teach them in a loving way that they're going to be able to understand me. And they can't be at the expense of our relationship. So I have the luxury of not being the rule enforcer. I mean, rules are important, but kids know that they're not going to get in trouble when they come to me. And it's incredible what kids will do and say when they know that they can be their authentic selves without fear of being punished. And that comes with having challenging behavior, right? If you have a challenging behavior in school, it will be consequences. So again, empathy and compassion go a really, really long way in helping stay connected to these kids to help them calm and help them be ready to learn. So the other hard part, incredibly hard part about being with is that it has, there's this level of awareness in ourselves to notice our own struggle, right? So, Steph, you give the example of the kid who's throwing stuff and really having a hard time. Internally, we might be upset ourselves because they're not following the rules and they're throwing things and that's disrespectful. And that can bring up emotions in ourselves. And those big emotions limit our ability to be with these students and their feelings. So I've talked about mirror neurons before, but mirror neurons are this way that humans learn from one another and we connect with one another. And if you've ever been in a room with another person, you might notice some mimicking body language. That's mirror neurons working. But the same thing happens when we're experiencing emotion. Like when you're having a rough day, kids pick up on it. Those are the days they push your buttons the most, right? If you are able to notice your own struggle, identify your own feelings and remind yourself, they're little people and they need me right now. They need my help. It's not about me. It's not about me. Little kids are not doing this to you. They're doing this because they need you. And I think that's incredibly powerful and profound and a way that we can help calm our own. Intensity in these situations to be present with these kids. And adults too. Another important component of being with is. To limit the distractions. I think it's really easy to get drawn away from the moment. The example I will use is if you are in an intense moment with someone in the phone rings. So incredibly distracting and you feel disconnected right away. So really limiting distractions. And the true art. Of attuning to children. That's just simply leaning in. And I think that's really important. Using everything that you know about that student, everything that you know about their needs. To make some guesses, some hypotheses about what's going on. And then lean in, lean in and being available to be with. That student. And I think as schools, we have to work to give people grace. So you might be late to the next class. But you know, you might be late to the next class. You might be late to the next class. You might be late to the, you know, the period before needed you to be with them.  You know, as schools and as, you know, personnel, we have to be able to give that grace to know. There are some things that are more important than being on time. We have to. Honor those situations and give them that the time that they need. You know, I'm trying to talk them out of that feeling all day long. You're going to be out of learning time all day long. But if you pause. Lean in. Notice your own struggle. Be with that person in their struggle. It could be a matter of seconds versus a matter of minutes, hours out of learning time. So in the end. The child benefits and you benefit, right? So, I think I said giving yourself permission to do that. Really important. And then finally, kids know when we're present. They also know when we're not present. They know when we're available and when we're not available. When we're not available, they will do things in more intense ways. In order to become available. Why do kids present with challenging behavior? And it's kids have to demonstrate more intense behaviors to get more intense needs met, right? So when in that shell, that's being with. If you have more questions about your own process in being with students or how you can do that or what that looks like for you, please let me know. I would love to support you in your ability to truly be with students when they're having a hard time or just throughout the day, right? You can be with students when they are okay as well. All right, let's keep moving on. So the next thing that I wanna talk to you guys about is something that I get very excited to talk about. It is co-regulation. Regulation, not talking about rules, regulation talking about a state of being. When we are regulated, that means that we are in this kind of homeostasis. We're not good, we're not bad, we're just there, right? That's where we function best. Co-regulation is the art of helping calm or regulate a child by way of sharing your calm or regulation. We're gonna listen to Bruce Perry in a moment in a video and he will explain it a bit more, but the idea is that this is something that babies learn in utero. And there are some important components to that, including pattern and rhythm. But over time, we have to find things that work for us. We'll identify things that don't work for us, but we have to learn this through a safe person. And if we don't learn this through a safe person, we will have a hard time regulating, self-regulating. So you may hear those terms used in education, self-regulation, self-regulating tools, those types of things, but it's oftentimes missed how we get to self-regulation. And it takes co-regulation, meaning another safe person to help us get there. All right, let's go to the video. And Steph, if you wouldn't mind, I wanna start the video at 212. Okay, I'm just gonna move my little bar at the bottom here so I can see that. So this is my main man, Bruce Perry. He is a nurse psychiatrist and he- Most powerful. Go ahead. He is incredible in terms of the world of helping us understand childhood trauma in the brain. I'm doing a book study right now on his recent book with him in Oprah. And he's kind of my idol. So, that's awesome. Tools that we have to regulate are what we call somato sensory activities. And it basically rhythmic movement, rhythmic sound, rhythmic visual input. And I can just tell you this and say, oh yeah, do rhythmic things, it'll make things better. And that's probably not that helpful. But if I help you understand why rhythmic things can make you feel better regulated, I think more people will sort of connect with this. So, one of the things that we know from neuroscience is that during development and even after development that the major mechanism that the brain uses to kind of make sense out of the world is to take all this incoming sensory input and when it occurs simultaneously, if sensory input comes in separately into the brain, but it's happening at the same time with sufficient frequency, it connects things.  And that's how your brain makes sense out of the world. So, your brain makes associations between things that co-occur.  And it's sending signals back that say, hey, I'm not cold, it's 98.7 in here. So, all of these feedback signals from the fetal body to the fetal brain are that I'm regulated. Now, that's happening at the same time that sensory input coming in through other routes, through your senses, the fetal senses are coming in in this syncopated rhythmic way, basically driven by mother's maternal heart rate. So, vibration from the aorta, tapping on the diaphragm, so movement from the heart literally moving inside the body of the mother, and then the sound of the syncopated rhythm of the heartbeat. So those rhythms and sub-multiples of those rhythms become associated with being regulated. And so, as you get older, after you're born, simply rocking a child at a frequency that's similar to maternal heart rate makes them feel safer and regulated. And so opens up their cortex and makes them open for business. A little boy who's bladder started to get more and more full and he's just learning how, he literally starts to rock himself while he plays Legos because he's feeling discomfort and they wanna finish my Lego castle. And, but rocking has nothing to do with your bladder. It has to do with making the kid feel better regulated because he's getting signals that say, hey, I'm full. And so we do this all the time. If you ever seen Pete Carroll, the football coach for the Seattle Seahawks Chugum during a football game, he's trying to regulate himself. And we all do this. We all have some form of pattern, repetitive rhythmic activity that makes us feel regulated. It could be walking, running, swimming, music, could be needlework, could be art. And different people are kind of different and develop different preferences. But as an educator, the great thing is that you can start using this in your classroom to take kids that might be dysregulated and start to make them feel more regulated. And so if you start your classroom with four minutes of pattern, repetitive, rhythmic activity, it could be breathing, it could be, you do a little bilateral movement, it could be jumping jacks. It depends on the age of the child and so forth.  But if you start the class that way, more kids are gonna be ready for business. And then if every 10, 15 minutes, you have a little two-minute somatosensory break, you can reset these kids who are starting to get dysregulated. And again, these are one of the things that we try to use in this neuro-sequential model is help educators figure out. So I love the way that Dr. Perry explains how this whole idea of co-regulation comes to be. I think that this place is a unique opportunity for paras because you guys are in the classrooms and I think you see kids becoming dysregulated all the time. It's just you can't put a label on it, right? So it's when kids start to squirm around, it's when kids start to fidget, it's when kids start to do the things that as adults were like, oh, that's irritating, right? That's their way of trying to find different ways to regulate as the adults in the classroom. Maybe you get to channel that a little bit, right? So when I'm working with students or even classroom teachers on regulation strategies, maybe you have four or five that you offer students and then they pick one that may work for them better and maybe you get to coach them through that moment, right? Right here, this is a pen and I always get pens with the metal, I don't even know what they're called, clip things. The reason why, because if I have plastic ones, I break them off all the time. They don't last because a regulatory strategy that my brain and my body discovered without me being aware of it is when I start to dysregulate, I'll put it on my finger and I'll just start to tap. It's non-disruptive, I don't notice I'm doing it. Most times other people don't notice that I'm doing it and these things happen all the time with students. But remember for trauma kiddos who are inherently going to need support in regulating and coming back to baseline, we will have to be supportive and flexible and helping them learn some of these tools. So I think we do a really great job at knowing the strategies, take a deep breath, ask for a break, right? But co-regulation is all about the co-part, doing it with, coaching through, supporting with, right? Only when we can see students doing it independently is that self-regulation. Co-regulation is what is required, the teaching piece from the adult in order to help that student self-regulate. Any questions about that? Okay, I have an entire list of strategies that I would love to share with you all. Maybe I'll send it to Steph and she can upload it with this recording. And if you ever have questions about regulatory strategies, please reach out. I'd love to support you with those. All right, let's move on. Sorry. It's okay. It always, when you hit advance, it always starts the video again, so. All right, so the last thing that I wanted to talk to you about is Dan Siegel. He is also a neuropsychiatrist and he does a ton of stuff with kids and parents. And this strategy is called Connect, Redirect. Steph, am I allowed to share my screen? I will make sure that you can, right here. Okay, so I wanna show everybody something. And again, I can send it to Steph so that you can upload it to the drive with, excellent. There you go. So again, I could explain this or I could just show you how to do, show you the resource and then you guys can interpret that. Do I have to stop my share to get you? Yeah, I think so. Sorry. It's all right. All right, so this is a refrigerator sheet for you all. It is tailored for teachers, educators. So the whole concept of Connect, redirect is, we're going to capitalize on relationship, the relationship that we have with this person.  And we are going to be incredibly aware of, remember when I talked about our own feelings getting in the way, we're gonna be really aware of that first. Okay. We gotta be aware of what emotions are going on for me right now. How do I acknowledge those and put them on pause and remind myself that I can handle this, this little person is struggling and they need me present. They need me right now, okay? And then we get to get curious. What's going on with the student? Why are they engaging in this behavior episode, struggle moment? You get to be curious about why it may be happening. And then you get to think about what I do next matters, right? So there's always the two paths. I don't know why we got stuck on two paths but there's always two paths. You can go the route of follow directions, follow the rules, get back to work, right? Or we can take a path of, I wanna make sure that you understand I'm here for you, right? So the connection strategy is get on eye level, reduce the power differential. If they're on the floor, get on the floor. If you don't wanna get on the floor, it's as low as possible with them, right? Let them know that you're there and you're non-threatening and your role is to not remind them of the rules. Your role is to support them through that moment. Again, you have to be empathetic. Empathy is just so important in the process of supporting kids with big feelings. And then you gotta validate what they're experiencing. And that can be as simple as, wow, I can see that you're really sad. Sadness did that for Bing Bong. Or it could be, wow, I noticed that you're really frustrated. And let me tell you, if you get it wrong, kids will let you know. I have done it before and it's, wow, I can see you're really frustrated. I'm not frustrated, I'm very mad. Okay, yeah, I can see that. You are really mad. You are mad, yeah. Acknowledge and even embrace those emotions. Like, yeah, it's okay to be mad. It's okay to be mad. It's okay, I'm here with you right now. Even if something has happened, right? Because something always happens, they've thrown the pencil, they've tossed the chair, right? You have to validate their experience. You gotta listen.  Sat and I said nothing. Because remember Joy, she tried all the words. She tried all the words to help Bing Bong be okay. And it didn't work. So stop talking and listen. And then if they are able to talk to you or tell you things, reflect back with them. So I hear you say that your math is too hard right now. Man, that is frustrating. And after you do this a couple back and forth times, right? They feel connected to you. They feel safe with you. At some point you understand what the problem is and you're already thinking of ways that you can make it better or make it different because they're gonna need your help to do that. When they are calm and only when they are calm, you will know that they are calm because of their body language, their voice tone, their body movements, that attunement that we talked about in being with. You'll sense their calm because you're calm, right? Then and only then can you move on to redirect. This is the teach piece. This is, wow, that did not go very good the first time. How are we gonna change this so that next time it goes better, right? So if it's, I threw my pencil because math was too hard. Hey, it is okay to be frustrated. Not so okay to throw your pencil. Next time you get frustrated, let's negotiate some things that you can do instead. Kids are on board with this. They want to know things that they can do instead of throw their pencil. But throwing their pencils, the only thing that they knew how to do in that moment, right? And then the critical part of this is knowing how can you teach that? Whatever you decide, whatever the, what are we gonna do instead? How do I teach that? And we can't forget about practice, right? I learned how to ride a bike, but I did not learn how to ride a bike without skinning my knees several times, right? You have to practice, practice, practice. And let me tell you, this isn't in the redirect piece, but it is very important. When you see kids knocking it out of the park, you have to offer them praise, praise, praise, praise, praise. You did such a great job of letting us know that you were frustrated in using XYZ tool. I am so proud of you, because then they're gonna be more likely to use it again, right? All right. That is connect, redirect and a nutshell. Again, I'll send that to Steph so you guys can go through that refrigerator sheet. If you have questions on that, please let me know. Getting back to our presentation here. Sorry. Maybe, just a second, sorry. There we go. Awesome. All right, so my little portion today is I want us to reflect on our words and the words we use. And because it's just about Valentine's Day, it's really do our words convey love and make sure kids feel loved and accepted and wanted and all those positive things. This is so important for us to reflect on because, well, we'll watch a video here in just a moment that helps us kind of see it. And I want you to really watch this little guy and see his experiences with the different adults and how they treat him and act with him. And I want you to think about tone of voice and the words that are said. So let's go ahead and take a look. Ew! Did you see that? Why would somebody do that? Please go into the classroom. No talking quietly. Hey, Ms. Merida, Ty, you did one. We need you inside. How do you think that makes us feel? I forgot my number. What's your name? Jordan. What's your last name? Carter. Go ahead. School is hard enough. Come on in, sit down quietly at your desk and begin writing. This kind of stuff just makes it harder. I said quietly, please. Who's talking? Is it you, Sophie? Don't let it be you. Don't believe me. Please just watch. I'm not up here for me. I'm up here for you. Pay attention, okay? Now, somebody answered me. Somebody needs to answer me really fast. Every time we're ignored or yelled at or silenced, a teacher takes away what's possible. No horseplay, no running, and especially no talking. Moment by moment. Ms. McGarrity, your student's behavior yesterday in the lunch room, it was terrible. Next time, silent lunch. Did you hear that? Stay in line and catch a bubble. I'm not playing. If this is education, we're in trouble. Bye, Ms. McGarrity. Frederick Douglas said, once you learn to read, you'll be forever free. The way is now, two of the three of us will never be able to really read. It doesn't have to be this way. Hey, Jordan, how you doing? Good. Good. Everyone we meet throughout our day can make a difference. I've been waiting for you to arrive. All the difference. Good, how are you? Good morning, Jordan. How are you? I'm doing well. Thanks for asking. How are you? Good. Go ahead, put your number in. Talk with us, not at us. That's okay, I'll look it up for you. Go ahead, sweetheart. Okay. All right. Teach us what we need to know. That's how we get smarter. Well, good morning, Sophie, Janicea, and Jordan. And when you talk with us and teach us, give us bigger and bigger words. Now what I'd like you to do, children, is turn around and converse with your neighbor and discuss where the mother might have gone. Words that we can use to read and understand. She is praying for eagles, so she hunts at night. And that will take us places we can never reach without you. Remember, we're entering the learning zone. Now how can we show our respect to the children and teachers who are working? We can walk quietly. Yes.  What can you do? Learn all that you can so that you can challenge us to be our best. You would have stayed and assisted them in whatever they needed. Share yourself with us and show us how to share ourselves with others. Give us courage. Give us compassion. Help us find our own voices so we can become who we are meant to be. Why would you want to silence us? We're gonna get back to our presentation here just real quick. All right, did it make you think how we react to kids when we sometimes are in a hurry or in a rush? We are having a bad day ourselves because we're human too. We always think about the kids and what do those words do to them? So our words, the words that of adults become children's inner voice. We teach them how to think and how to talk to themselves. And we wanna make sure that that is a positive thing. So some of that's just the tone. It's not always the exact words we say, but it's how we say it. Hurry up, you guys, get in the classroom versus hurry up, guys, get in the classroom. Come on, let's go. We've got so much to do today, right? That makes it sound like it's gonna be a great day and great fun. And if somebody has poor behaviors acting out in some way, getting really harsh with them and making them feel horrible is just gonna take us down that horrible road for our day. So we have to think about are the things we're saying to kids positive, loving and respectful? If you wouldn't talk to an adult that way, don't talk to a kid that way, right? Let's be respectful of them. Sonya, did you have anything to add there? Sorry, I went on. Nope, I just think it's incredibly powerful with the words that we use because again, especially those trauma kiddos when they come in, they may already be hovering in red and they already might be on their way up towards escalation and when they hear harshness, that's going to escalate or enhance the fear and then you're gonna get shut down where we then don't have compliance, we're unable to follow rules and then we're just gonna spend even more time trying to get those kids to engage or follow the directions or those types of things. And I think what you say is right about me or neurons, we talk about that a lot with our Marzano work and with educational research. If we're excited about school and happy about school or if we're compassionate to kids, they're gonna be compassionate, they're gonna match that. So we have to show that excitement, that joy, that be the one at the door that's saying, hello, I'm glad you're here today. Just for kids to hear that is so important. And then when there are times that we don't like behavior or whatever, we have to help them work through that in a positive way. There's another saying in education that is where there is no relationship, there is no significant learning. So if we kill that relationship by being really harsh with our kids and not understanding and not compassionate, then they're gonna stop learning from us. So we have to work hard for that. And every day that Paris, you do such an important job in our schools and today's the first day of the Chinese New Year. So happy New Year. It's been a hard month. January was hard everybody. So maybe we're ready for that new year, okay? So 2022 is the year of the water tiger, which means prosperity for all of us, yay. And signs of strength, exercising those evils and pushing them out and braveness. And we know in the past two years all those things have been so important for us. But I just wanna know, I want you to know how appreciated you are and the job you do is so essential in our schools.  I have a client coming in, but if anybody has questions, please put them, reach out. Thanks so much, Sonia. Thanks for being with us. I'm gonna see the rest of you on April 5th. It was actually going to be a recorded Zoom next time in April. So the link will be on our website. I'll send out a reminder about that. And we're gonna talk about keeping kids engaged. And that was a topic that came from all of you from our surveys too. In the spring, it gets hard, doesn't it? So we're gonna work on keeping kids engaged. And I just wanna remind you that at our website bit.ly slash Paris of ESU 8, you can find today's recorded Zoom. You can also find our presentation. And Sonia said she's gonna send me a couple resources and I will link them there as well. So once again, I just wanna say thanks so much, guys. If you have any questions at all, feel free to email me. I've been getting para emails throughout the year and it makes me happy. I can help you problem solve or share some ideas. But thanks, everybody. Any questions before we go? Thank you. Okay, thanks, everybody. See you next time.


Okay, so I'm going to talk a little bit about the role of simulation in hands-on science. So it's not really like a research talk that I'll talk a little about some of the things I've worked on a little bit. But for the most part, I want to sort of make some broad comments about some current trends in simulation and computation, things that you're probably aware of, and then maybe a few things that are maybe a little more subtle and kind of interesting, I think. So hopefully it'll be interesting and broad for everybody. First of all, let me tell you a little about where I'm from since everybody's from all over the world. I live in Boston, which is right there at that arrow. I noticed when I was looking at this map, it's surprisingly looks like it's about the same latitude as Trieste, or actually a little bit south, because I noticed the sun stays out a little bit longer here. The problem in Boston is though it gets a tad colder there, we get a kind of a lot more snow. So this is my daughter. This was only halfway through this past winter. That's the roof of the garage next to us. So it kind of, we sometimes get a little bit more snow there in Trieste, but at least this time of year in Boston it's quite lovely, so maybe not quite as nice as here. I work at a place called Olin College. It's kind of maybe a little bit unusual. It's a very small school. We only have about 350 students total. We only offer degrees in engineering. That's my background. I'm actually an engineer. And it's an undergraduate college as well, so there's no masters and no PhD students. So everything I do there is with undergraduates. We're out in the suburbs of Boston, just maybe 10 or 15 kilometers outside of the city. And another interesting thing about Olin is that we have a very strong focus on hands-on learning. So all the education is very much in the style of this school, which is I think why I tend to come back here in this place is exciting for me. So we do a lot of projects. We do a lot of lab courses. We get students in engineering involved in design and working with companies and all kinds of things like that. So this program kind of resonates, I guess, with me and things I like to teach and do there. Oops, wrong direction. My background in engineering is in fluid dynamics. So I've worked on a number of problems, so that seems to be the theme that keeps coming back. So my comments today about simulation are probably going to be a little bit biased towards fluid-type simulations. So everything I say might not be quite as relevant for different types of simulation, but that will be the sort of bias I bring to everything is the field of fluid dynamics. So in the first talk that Professor Swinney gave on the first day, he talked about big science and hands-on science. And I think it's probably pretty clear that these two distinctions kind of make their way up in simulation, where big science would be super computing and hands-on science would be using something like a laptop. And by big science and super computing, I mean we really mean big science. The current winner of the big science award in super computing is this machine in China. And it takes 18 megawatts just to run it. It's about a half a billion dollar computer. And it's capable of 33 petaflops. So a flop is a floating point operation per second, so like multiplying some numbers together. Peta is 10 to the 15, right, 10 to the 15. So that's a lot of flops. And by hands-on science, I mean just sort of using basically computers that you can buy at the store on Amazon. So things that don't require a lot of money and they don't require a lot of expertise to set up. Something you can buy and just turn on. You know, a good hands-on computer. I was worried about some software that I would be able to stall it. So I brought my Linux workstation with me just in case I needed it. I bought this thing for like $100 and it's fairly capable. And it's this big. So that's what I mean by sort of hands-on simulation and computing. It's just using ordinary, low-cost, easy to use computers. An important thing, though, about sort of simulation and this distinction between big science and hands-on science, which, of course, is more of a grayscale continuum, is that problems sort of continually flux from this realm to that realm, from this realm to that realm. So what was a big science problem one day can become a hands-on science project the next. So problems always are moving kind of in this direction from big science to hands-on science. I think a great example of this, the one I like, at least for this crowd, is if you go back and look at the original paper by Lorenz. So this is a 50-year-old paper, right? It was in 1963, the sort of famous paper in non-linear dynamics, about sensitivity to initial conditions, the little spirals that we've all become familiar with. And you know, it's a very beautiful paper. It still holds up well today. You read it today and all the ideas. I mean, the big ideas are really there. And it's really still a nice paper even 50 years later. And it's one that, in this crowd, at least in the beginning of every book in non-linear dynamics, this is sort of like the first example. But it's important to remember, if you look in that paper, even though no one talks about this, is the problem involves supercomputing. So this is the computer he used. It was about half a million dollar machine, and today's dollar, sort of equivalent. Lorenz was at MIT, so he had access to this kind of thing. He had access to the expertise of the people who could program it. It was not trivial to program these types of machines. And his simulations took a long time. The classical story, I don't know if it's true, was about how he would start his simulation and go off. And then he would restart it days later and type the numbers in. And that was how he discovered that if you didn't type the exact number in, you got different results. Whether that's true or not, I actually don't know. But it did take a long time to run these calculations. And his calculations were just on this sort of his model where these three coupled ordinary differential equations. So by today's standards, not a very intense calculation. But for the time, it required supercomputing. And he wouldn't have been able to sort of make his discoveries without access to these big computations. And so this sort of notes that the sort of scaling laws, there's something maybe a little bit different about simulation in hands-on science and big science. So in the first talk, Professor Swinney talked about the James Webb telescope and how big it is and how awesome it is and how much money it's going to cost. But there's no future I can envision where this becomes a hands-on science problem. There's some problems, physical things, shooting them to space. It just takes energy. Things cost money. Sensors are big. I mean, there's no way this will ever be a project that can be hands-on.  But in simulation, there's no problem I envision that anybody is working on or is conceiving that eventually would not be accessible with a laptop or any computer. So it's sort of maybe a different scaling laws are going on or something a little bit different than about physical experiments. The law that you've probably all heard of is called Moore's Law. It's often maybe misused. So Moore's Law is this idea that the number of transistors on a circuit doubles every some number of years. So the law was coined by a guy, Gordon Moore, who is one of the co-founders of Intel. He's one of these billionaires who's probably did enough that he should be worth a billion dollars or however much he's worth. Very brilliant engineer. And he had sort of made this offhand comment in a kind of a trade publication early in his career that the number of transistors was doubling every year. He later revised that to doubling every two years. And over 40 years, that law has actually held up pretty well. So the curve is there as doubling every two years. And that's just data points of different chips over time. And you see going from in the 70s, from about when I was born, from 2000 up to 2 billion, 40 years later. Just gave my age away. Damn it. And any measure of computational speed kind of follows these laws. So if you plot computing performance, so the number of floating operations per second, over 40 years, lots of different processors, they kind of fall along this line. If you look at kind of the fastest processors today, we're approaching about a teraflop. So 10 to the 12th multiplications per second. This amounts to, if you kind of fit this curve, it's roughly 100 times performance every decade, every 10 years we go up about a factor of 100, roughly. If you look at other measures such as calculations per kilowatt hour, so how much energy does it cost to do the calculations, they follow the same trends. These are important because if you're doing a simulation of an airplane, you don't want to use as much energy as an airplane. But they're also following a trend of about 100 times better every decade. So meaning I can do the same amount of energy 100 times more calculations. If we look at supercomputers rather than just single processors, we find a slightly different scaling law. Here we get something roughly more like 1,000 times per decade because not only is it the single processor is getting better, but it has to do with software and making things in parallel. So there's other advances that allow you to even get more out even if it's not just the processors getting faster. So every 10 years we see about 1,000 times performance every decade. This curve is a little bit funny here because I took it from this website. This is the fastest computer in the world as a function of year. This is the 500th fastest computer. So they kind of rank the 500 top computers in the world. This is the sum of all of them. So I don't know why they put that on there because you would never be able to add them all up. But what's interesting is if you look at this curve, and if you remember, I said that the best single processor CPU right now is around a teraflop, that's about what the best supercomputer was around 2000, so about 15 years ago. If you sort of factor in the fact that even these really, really big machines, you never have access to the whole machine. They're always shared resources. You're always in the queue. So no one actually ever gets to use that full power for the whole year. And you kind of sort of discount that. I would say, you know, you're probably looking at the, even for people who have good access, you're probably closer to this curve than that curve in practice. And so therefore it's probably more like a decade, 10-year time lag between what a supercomputer can do and what a fairly low cost computer that you just buy on Amazon can do. Roughly. Roughly about a 10-year time lag, I would say. Yes, because they build a big computer and it holds on for a while, then someone builds a big one and it holds on for a while. And so, yeah, because it's more of an average, right? It's lower doubted, yeah. So you can see every three to five years it looks like someone builds a bigger computer. So the current winner, the one in China, it looks like it's held on for four years. But it won't stay there much longer, right? Someone will beat it soon. There's a question about whether these kind of trends can continue. There's some interesting things you can find online written by some higher-ups at Intel. So currently, the current Intel process, 14 nanometers is the feature size. That's about as small as they can go right now. And depending on who you've asked and what you read and who you believe, I can't find anyone who believes anything less than five to seven nanometers. Is that about what you would say? Yeah, so no one at Intel really believes that it'll be efficient or possible to go below five to seven nanometers. And that's like the feature size of like little transistors. And that date's projected roughly five to 10 years from now, maybe 2020, maybe 2025. And right now anyway, there's not like anything on the horizon that looks like it's gonna take over, like some other technology. Eventually, of course, something must take over at some point in the future if we manage to keep this planet alive that long. But it's not clear whether these kind of trends will actually continue much beyond five to 10 years, at least in feature size. But even if feature sizes don't change, I'm not pessimistic on the number of calculations per second, that there's other advances that we've seen in software as in multiprocessors that might make these things, the sort of computing power increase, even if the individual CPUs have to slow down or stall at least for a little while. So an interesting exercise is to take your field and then propagate these trends upon what would be possible in the future. So I did this for fluid dynamics because it's the field I know. So in fluid dynamics, we characterize everything by something called the Reynolds number. The Reynolds number is this magic dimensionless number. It's the ratio of inertia to viscosity. When the Reynolds number is big, the flow is complicated. There's lots of spatial modes, lots of time modes. So you need lots of lots of points, both in space and time to integrate things, to do a simulation. So the Reynolds number kind of captures everything about the flow, how big does the simulation need to be? If we want to calculate the actual fundamental conservation of mass, momentum and energy equations, not making some sort of approximations. So the Reynolds number captures everything. And it turns out the scaling goes as the Reynolds number cubed. So if I want to make a factor of 10 increase on the Reynolds number, I need a factor of 1,000 increase in computing power. So if you then say, okay, well my laptop right now, if I just pulled it out and used some commercial software or whatever, I could do a simulation of about 1,000. So the Reynolds number of 1,000 is no problem, give or take. And so that I'll call right here, 10 to the 3 at time zero. And so if I assume 1,000x increase in computing power per every 10 years, and since this goes as a factor of cubed as well, that means every 10 years I can get an order of magnitude bigger in Reynolds number. If it's 100 times performance per decade in computing power, the slope is lower. And so then if I say, okay, well, what's the Reynolds number of, I don't know, some random things that we might want to calculate, it kind of gives me an estimate of how many years in the future I would just be able to get out my laptop, put the thing in, click a button and just get the result, right? With basically no problem. So if I took an animal swimming, I don't know, I picked a dolphin. I estimated the Reynolds number was right about here. So we're still a fair ways out. So maybe 40, 50 years out, depending upon what the computing power does. If I took like an industry problem, like an aircraft and it's not much bigger than an aircraft flying in terms of Reynolds number, that's about as big as you'd ever want to go. Maybe we're 50 to 175 years out. If I took the atmosphere, like if I want to do a full simulation of the atmosphere, now we're getting up to Reynolds number about 10 to the 15. So we got some years to go. So this is either optimistic or pessimistic, I guess, depending on your point of view. 100 years is kind of a long time. I may not be around to see that, most likely. But it's pretty amazing that at some point, we could just basically do a calculation of the biggest things we can think of with no problem. Yeah, so it depends on what that does, right? Yeah, so that's another interesting, would be an interesting measure to look at, whether with these trends, if we get to this point, would it be the same energy requirements as building the wind tunnel and testing it? So one of your homework assignments for today is to think about what this means for your field. So I think it's kind of an interesting exercise to just think about the problems you're interested in and what would be possible five, 10, 15, 20, 50 years from now, it's just kind of an interesting thing to think about, like what would be sort of a routine calculation that we would look back like we do at Lorenz's thing where it's like quaint, the Royal McBee, oh, 40, 96 words, right? What's it gonna look like in 50 years for the kind of problems you're interested in? For hand, so I'm gonna play this video in the background while I talk. So for hands-on science though, there's something I think that excites me even more than the increases in computer power, which is basically improvements in software and be able to do sort of complex simulations without a lot of background or sort of formal training or getting into the details behind these numerical codes. So what's running in the background is I'm just, it's a real-time video. I'm making up a problem as I go. I'm gonna solve a problem in fluid dynamics using this commercial finite element, what they call multi-physics software called ComSol. And I'm just sort of making up a problem here. And what's interesting though is over, I would say it's really been like the past five years. So these kind of softwares have been in industry for a long time. People have been wanting to do finite elements of solid mechanics and structures and fluid mechanics for a long time. Since the 60s people have been trying to do this. And it used to be that every kind of market, industry, or field had their own set of packages. So if you were in the auto industry, there was things you used. If you were doing structures in the auto industries, there were packages you used. All these industries were very fragmented. Things have gotten dramatically better over the past several years, where these packages have really started to consolidate. And so now you don't have to have a specialty package to do fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, heat transfer, thermodynamics, material science, electromagnetics. They're becoming integrated and they're becoming good enough that you don't actually have to be an expert in simulation methods to sort of use them. You can just kind of draw the thing you want. You still have to have a good physical understanding. Either as a scientist or engineered to interpret the results, you still have to have a good understanding to set the problems up. So there's still a good physical understanding, but you don't have to be an expert in numerical analysis to use these tools. I use these tools in my undergraduate fluid mechanics course all the time. It takes me half a class to teach the students how to use it. And then we can just sort of slide things around and we can check on the fly, sort of qualitative behavior in fluid flow. So here I think I was setting up a problem. I'm talking faster than the movie's going. Just a flow problem. I'll kind of skip it ahead. I just click on some stuff. I make a mesh. Is it running still? Yeah, it's still running. And there I just click the button to calculate it. You know, I just put some cylinders in a flow. I don't know, I'm just sort of making something up. But you see the whole process from beginning to end, setting up the problem to getting the result took maybe two or three minutes at most. And you know, when I was in graduate school, I couldn't have done this. Like it would have taken me months and months and months to develop this code or to figure it out from scratch. And now, you know, I can just set it up and do it. And so this is, I think, gonna be more revolutionary than for sort of hands-on science, our ability to simulate complex things and complex physics in different fields without having to be an expert in numerical analysis and computer science. It reminds me, and this sort of thing reminds me of this little essay that I found some years back that I really like. It's probably about 10 years old. It was written by this guy, Lloyd Trefethan, who's a very well-known numerical analysis guy at Oxford. And his essay was called The 10-Digit Algorithm, and the mantra was 10 digits, five seconds, in just one page. And so the point was on the 10 digits is that nothing in physics is known better than 10 digits. So if you have an algorithm that computes things accurate to 10 digits, then it's right, right? There's no need to go any further, right? It's, you've nailed it. The five seconds I think is really interesting. So I'll just read what he said. He says, in computing with humans, response time is everything. If a program runs in less than five seconds, its author will effortlessly adjust, improve, and experiment. The process of exploration becomes interactive and pleasurable. If a program runs for a minute or an hour, on the other hand, it's a very different situation from the human point of view. And the one-page argument was that one page or one screen, you can print it out and you can share it with somebody and you can talk about it and you can look at it. Anything longer than that, it's too complicated. And it's all about what he says linking to people. And so even though these finite element softwares that allow you to do multi-physics, they may not look like programming languages in the traditional sense. They still have a summary that basically encapsulates the problem that you've set up in all the parameters and you can print it out or put it on the screen and yeah, it's about one page. And so this idea of being able to interact with simulation and computation in this way, this human way of just being able to iterate and experiment on the fly, I think is gonna be really important for the future and it's kind of already here. So I'm gonna do a quick survey. I'll give you a minute to think about it and then discuss with your neighbor and then converge on an answer. You can have two different answers. But I just wanna know what your estimate is based on what you know of what sort of the time lag is between a routine computation and one that requires an expert. So another way to say it is think of something in your field that somebody's working on right now that's really, really hard. It requires kind of an expert to programming it. It requires an expert who knows a lot about numerical analysis and computing. And the results of that, while the results might be something beyond just the methods, it really requires an expert to implement it, sort of a publishable thing. And how long would it take for that to be something that just kind of anybody could set up and in a day's work, you could basically regenerate those results? So I know it's less than 50 years because if I look at Lorentz's paper, would categorize of one that required an expert, I can set that problem up and I can regenerate his results at about 15 minutes. It doesn't mean I'm as smart as Lorentz. It doesn't mean I have the insight that he had. It doesn't mean it's no way to diminish the work, the actual work that he was interested in. It just means the computation part of it is nothing now. So I know it's less than 50 years. So take a few minutes and we'll do it in increments of five years as an estimate so there's no point in going narrower than that. So as a time lag, five years, 10 years, 15, 20, 25, 30, it's less than 50, I know that. Has to be. So take one minute and then we'll take kind of a quick poll and we'll see what people think. And there's no right answer and it might vary too. I'm just sort of curious what the mean in the room is. Yeah. What? Harry, you're sure he could go to the bank and be back in time for your talk? So he went, that's where he went this morning? That's where he is. Oh well, it's not that he doesn't already know or heard or whatever. That's right. All right, since this is an informal poll, let's go ahead and do it. So unlike Professor Schatz, we're not gonna be secret. We're just gonna make our votes known. So we'll do it in increments of five years. This is totally informal and I don't even claim to know. There's not really is an answer. There's just sort of a balance with margins of errors. So did anyone think it's five years? So we have a couple votes for five years. How about 10? Fair number of votes for 10 years. How about 15? I can't hold up 15. 15. 15. We have a few votes for 15. 20? One for 20? Anything greater than, anyone greater than 20? A couple votes for greater than 20. No, just to be able to develop the code to do it. So if you had the idea, you could just implement it and be done with the implementation in no time. Kind of that aspect. So it sounded like, it looked like the mean was about 10 years. We had a few at five. We had kind of a tail going off, you know, 15, 20, but most people said 10. 10 was actually my vote as well. And I based this on one data point, which was myself. So I just sort of sat there and I was looking at things that I was working on. And I came to something I was working on about 10 years ago. This was this kind of microfluidic coupled problem of like flow and electrodynamics and ion transport and all this kind of stuff. It was a little bit non-standard at the time so it required writing our own simulations kind of from scratch. It required getting a bunch of people together so there were experimentalists and theory. There were several authors on the paper and it required, I probably worked a couple months, not full time, but like in the back of faculty meetings when I wasn't paying attention and things like that to get the code to actually work even though this wasn't anything that crazy but it was just it was non-standard so it took time to do it. And so I pulled it up, I pulled out the software and I was able to regenerate all the results. It took me about 30 minutes. And so this was about a 10 year old paper. It took about 30 minutes now. And so I think well what would be different if this work were being done now than rather than 10 years ago? I think the work still holds up because it wasn't really about the methods or the simulation. It was just the simulation was part of the story to sort of explain what all the mechanisms were. So it was required that we do it to make the paper good but it was about the physics so none of that would change but I think the team would be smaller. There would be no need to have this collaboration. The graduate student who had done the experiments originally and sort of made the first observation in a lab probably would have just, his advisor said why don't you go simulate that thing and he would have done it and it would have taken him maybe more than 30 minutes but it wouldn't have taken months and they probably would have just done it him and the advisor. So it would have been a much more self-contained project with just the individuals who did the experiments also doing the simulations and kind of everything together. The other thing that was interesting that I haven't had a chance to play around with is now I can basically get the result instantly. So this goes back to the 10 digit algorithm that now, even though these weren't like super intense calculations that took months, right? I did them on my laptop. They took hours or overnight but now it's like it just runs and so I can sit there and I can play around with it and I, oh what happens if we change this? And so it's kind of a much different experience too because you can have explore things in simulation that we weren't really able to do before. And so back in 2004 we really used simulation as this bridge from sort of the mechanism to the experiments to kind of prove that we understood what was going on. Whereas now we could think about maybe using the simulations in a sort of more interactive way with the experiments and maybe designing new experiments or coming up with new ideas in simulation that we then believed that we could then test in the lab. So I think it opens up some opportunities to maybe think about a little differently about how we've traditionally used simulation. So let's make a few random predictions. None of these are that grand. Do you guys know who this guy is? Ray Kurzweil? You ever heard of him?  So he's a chief engineer at Google so I can't make fun of him too much because he's a really bright guy obviously. But he wrote this book a few years back about the singularity and how basically AI and biotechnology and people were gonna converge and all sorts of crazy things are gonna happen. You can look it up on Wikipedia. Some of them are, you know, some of the predictions are interesting and some are pretty out there. But maybe he'll prove to be right. So I'm not gonna be as grand as him. And any of these you wanna debate just or if you have something you wanna add, we can discuss, we're doing pretty good on time here. So my prediction is that Moore's Law for Transistors is gonna be a problem five to 10 years and we're gonna be done with it or there's gonna be a pause until something new happens. But I'm still optimistic that computing power and power per watt are gonna continue to get better and better and better and better. So even if we can't do anything immediately about the processors, that we're gonna keep growing in computing power. The power per watt I think is an interesting one because the brain puts kind of a good, a pretty high bar for us. Our brains use about 25 watts. So nature has proven that it is possible to do a lot of computation without a lot of energy. We've got a long ways to go though to figure out how the brain works. So I think computing power is gonna continue to grow and that assuming a hundred times performance per decade is not an insane thing to do. You know, as I said, for big science, I think these kind of complex simulations are gonna continue just to become routine. Where it not only can do quickly, but you don't need an expert to do them and that trend is just gonna keep continuing. But as I showed with sort of the scaling and fluid dynamics, this kind of big science work is gonna remain for at least my lifetime. We're not at the end yet. There's lots of big problems yet still that are important that people are gonna work on. So it's not gonna go away as a field. But I think it is gonna become a field that becomes much more specialized and much more concentrated in industry and big groups. So it's gonna be much harder for individuals to make itty contributions because industry I think is there's just too much money and too many resources that it's gonna be sort of more concentrated with a specialist and the average person is gonna kind of know less and less about these big simulations. So I think the market's kind of going in that direction. CAE stands for computer aided engineering. So that's kind of the trade term for these big packages that run these multi physics finite element simulations. The industry needs have gotten very strong and I think are gonna take over the market here. That these tools that were fragmented among academia and different industries, that they're all gonna come together, they are already coming together and it's gonna be even better. And the industry push is that people really want in industry to integrate analysis and design. They don't wanna have a bunch of people designing stuff and then they just go through it because we have to see who arounds them.  They want the designers to be right in the loop with it instantly. So they want to be able to draw the parts and then just click buttons and simulate it. But they want correct results. Industry does not want bad results. You can't spend a lot of money designing an airplane and it not work. So the demand for the simulations to be accurate and get good results but for them to be run by people who are not specialists. They're specialists in engineering and science but they're not specialists in numerical methods. So I think this trend in industry is gonna continue to push and that at least in these kind of things for fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, material science, electromagnetic, the industry is gonna have all the new innovations. There's too many hard problems left that individuals are gonna have a very hard time coming up with. It's a very mature field now. For hands-on science, I'm very excited. I think these new tools are gonna change the way that we do and think about using simulation with experiments. I think we're evolving away from this kind of tradition where we always use simulation as this kind of bridge between theory and experiment. So I'm not quite sure how this is gonna play out but I think there's a lot of opportunities there. I think the best people and the best papers in the kind of hands-on field will integrate experiments and simulation. When I was a graduate student, we used to put people in bins in fluid mechanics. We'd say, what do you do? Oh, I'm an experimental fluid mechanics. What do you do? I'm a numerical fluid mechanics person or I'm a theoretical fluid mechanics person. I don't think those exist anymore. They exist from, maybe I still have some bias because I'm older, but the younger people do all of it together. And I don't know many people who, I mean, I think Eva Conso and I went to graduate school at the same place around the same era and we would probably both have a little bit bias towards simulation and theory but now we both have experimental labs and I know lots of people who have evolved that way because it's not enough to just do the simulations. And on the other hand, I know people who were very good experimentalists doing very complicated things I could never replicate. One of them I now know runs a company around doing simulation. And so I think at least in some of these fields that it's not possible to just say, oh, I'm gonna do experiment or I'm gonna do theory, you've gotta do all of it together. I think it's a great opportunity. It's a great way to work and there's a lot of opportunity but it's gonna be harder to bend yourself as doing just one thing. And I think the corollary to that is as more people use simulation, fewer and fewer of us will actually understand what's inside these codes. I don't know if that's a bad thing. It's certainly true about computers and we've all got one of these and how many of us could explain what the heck's inside of it. I don't know, you push on the button and you watch YouTube videos. That's how I use it, right? And so at some point when the tools get so good you stop worrying about and you kind of trust what's inside of them and so I think this is gonna happen with a lot of these codes that will maybe in an educational sense know kind of roughly what's being done but there's gonna be very few people who actually understand the details and the people who do will be concentrated in industry just like in the computer chip, right? There aren't individuals who really could design an Intel chip. It takes a big army and a lot of experience. Artificial intelligence, I think one cool thing that's gonna happen, maybe this won't come true but I think it will, is that all this stuff will eventually move to the cloud because everything moves to the cloud. Someone's gonna figure out how to put all this stuff so you don't even need to install software. You just run it through the web. It's already happening in computer-aided drafting so there are already companies that are actually quite big and making money with new business models to do drawing packages and manufacturing.  What's the physics and it's just gonna do it for you? And I think the way it's gonna do it for you is that in the cloud the solvers were learned by experience. This is not a crazy idea. This is how video games work now. I don't know if you know this but when you go online and play a great, very intellectual game like Call of Duty where you sit there and shoot at people, you fight against all these computer-generated soldiers. The computer-generated soldiers learn in the cloud. They learn from watching you play in the US and they watch from you playing in China and India and they learn from all these people over the world how they play the game and that's how they decide how these little actors, these computer-generated actors will work. This is what Google thinks is gonna happen in robotics. This is why Google is buying all these robotics companies that all the learning and software will be in the cloud. So in these solvers it's actually very difficult because there's all these kind of hidden parameters that experts have to figure out. And I think the future is that basically when I solve a problem and figure out how to get it to work that somebody else in Japan will solve the same problem but since I already figured it out, the computer will just recognize it and put the pieces together. That might be my most crazy prediction. Some fields I think will remain an exception, biology is one. We don't even know kind of what the equations are so there's a lot of fun, there's some fields where the challenges are so fundamental that everything I just said is probably irrelevant. And that's it. So I think there's a lot of opportunities that hand us on science. I think I'm really excited about kind of the more interactive nature of these complex things. I think there's opportunities to use simulation more integrated with experiments in kind of new ways and I think it's an interesting thing to think about. I think this idea of they're not requiring specialization and numerical analysis and training to be able to do these good simulations opens up a lot of opportunities. It opens up multidisciplinary ones because it's letting me work in fields that maybe I don't know have all the background in that would have been required some years ago and so it lets me collaborate with other people. I think 10 years is the magic number. It's my magic number. Both for computing power and training and skill, anything being done now will be trivial in 10 years. And I think as computing becomes easier and easier and easier just as with all the things that hands on science, it's picking the problems that matter. It's not the methods. It's the what you're computing, not the how. This is what's gonna become important. So anyway, I did pretty good on time. I didn't go over. So I'd be happy to take any questions. Anyone wanna discuss? We got a few minutes and then we'll end early and have time to hike up the hill. Yeah. So I haven't looked at what the sort of price in today's dollars is as a function of time. They are getting less expensive but they do cost money and so there is this sort of calculation you have to do.  What are you gonna spend your time working on? What problems and what kind of things? And yeah, so you have to make a calculation about whether it's worth purchasing or not. Most of the prices or their pricing model is to get money from industry more than academia so it's often more affordable.  Fuck, software thing is easy to always get answered but that often it's easy to get a wrong answer. Like if you just misuse it slightly and you're not savvy, do you think that that's less true or? It's less true than it used to be but it will always be true, right? So it's, as with anything, right? If you, it is always possible to get results that are incorrect and so this is where it comes in that you have to have some background in physics, you have to have some background in engineering, you have to have some physical intuition from the problem, you have to have an experiment to validate things but you don't need to be an expert in the details of finite elements and know that I need to set this parameter to this and use this solver and you just don't worry about that stuff.  So there's all that, that aspect of validation will always be there. And even when I've mentioned where it says statics or fluid mechanics, for example, closing objects on a surface, it was all about, well, what can we do which is not in the current package of those we were looking at from the work or points we were looking for? No, it exists now, but it didn't exist. This is like changing very rapidly. So yeah, so I think all that's true but I think it's all changing. So some of this was, I'm thinking more about like just kind of where it is now and what it's gonna be like in five years. I think the sort of continuum physics, so the fluid mechanics, solid mechanics, heat transfer, all that is well on its way to being standard and the packages will just work. When I first started trying some of these packages 10 years ago, it was the same problem, nothing works. And every year I try them, I can do more and more complicated things with very, very little effort. So, but it's definitely true that there are many systems where we don't know what the equations are, we don't know what the physics are and there's lots and lots of work to understand that. Yeah, no, that's kind of what I think is gonna happen. But again, it all comes back to what are the forces that are driving the change. So in sort of classical physics, again, fluids, electromagnetism, heat transfer, materials, solid mechanics, there's a very, very strong industry need and industry is very good once things get mature and sort of pushing things forward if there's a market for it. For a quantum chemistry, I don't know quite what the market is, right? So it's a very different issue if there's a strong industry need versus if it's purely academic and research need. The tools will develop very differently into very different time scales. So for example, if it took somebody to, let's say, a GI tenure, it was a wonderful experiment. You know, he had one person who helped him build this. Is it true that he graduates today will do the same experiment in roughly two weeks? That's a great question. I think it really depends upon the problem. So a lot of these scaling laws and computing are the same as in consumer electronics. And this is what Professor Swinney talked about a lot in his first talk. And so things with like imaging and cameras. I mean, I've heard Professor Shattuck tell me back in the day when he first started grading their materials, they would take like pictures and then paste them on the board and then do particle tracking by hand. Is that? Absolutely. And so those types of experiments, yes, can be done faster, right? How many can you track now? A million or a hundred thousand? Or as many as I want, right? As many as I want. And so yeah, there's some things like that. I'm sure in your world in the sort of optics and electronics, there's lots of things that are possible now that just were not. But something like Taylor's experiment where you're building a thing and you spin it. Yeah, I mean, that stuff still costs money. Materials cost money. Good materials cost time to machine. His brilliance was coming up with the idea, but I'm not sure that that experiment could be done really any different now than a hundred years ago. And again, I think things like these really big things like telescopes that go into space.  But I'm just talking about table time. But I think it just depends a lot upon, you know, the field and the tools. I mean, in biology, you know, it used to be hard to read a letter and now the whole genome, you can get for nothing, right? It's getting much easier. So a lot of those scaling laws in some aspects of biology are doing the same thing, but not all, right? There's still some things that take time. So I think it's very problem dependent. It's just like whether there are tools that exist that are following these kind of, you know, doubling type phenomena. As much as people raising hands, so maybe they're gonna have a comment and I'm not gonna answer it. I think that's what I'm trying to say. And more generally, all of these kind of controllers are, you know, an indisible family of more powerful ones. So that's exactly the Raspberry Pi, they are, you know, all of these kinds of things that we are introducing in our hand-drawn school. 3D printing. 3D printing. 3D printing. 3D printing. Last year, I guess somebody did us the hand-drawn question. Do you like it? It's a table experiment. You could. You can't 3D print glass, though. That's what I need to like. I had 3D printing in mind when I asked that question. Yeah. And microfluidics is another big driver. Yeah. There's so many groups investing in so many ways of making microfluidics. Yeah. The interesting thing with microfluidics is I always hear this kind of electronics analogy. The problem, though, in some mechanical system is there's no op amp. So in electronics, the op amp is the device we use to buffer so you can impedance match so that what you put downstream doesn't affect what's upstream. Mechanical things there aren't op amps. Sometimes these functions you just can't concatenate and group them together one after another. So there's some things in the mechanical world and the physical world that I think will always be challenging. If you look at fields like robotics, it's all gotten quite modular and standard on the mechanical side. All the hard problems left are software and mechanical problems and actuators because they still take a lot of energy.  We should end and get to our session. So why don't we end and...


Everybody forced here ripping 2022 origins Certified in origins football hobby a box mixer number two random teams Check out the results right here. There's a Lincoln chat for you as well. Good luck. Everybody. Let's get started Start with these four certified boxes Mike, what's up, man? Short of late tonight, buddy. I'm sure you're busy all the time now Carson strong graffiti Eagles Josh Jacobs numbered 143 of 149. Oh, yeah, they're randomized before the break Got browns David Bell rookie Jersey card 276 out of 299 5 of 10 graffiti Falcons Desmond Ritter Falcons it takes place a few minutes before the before the break on stream on on live stream If you rewind your stream, you'll be able to see it if you wanted to Then the results are always on the website Nice one lions here Aiden Hutchinson to freshman fabric RPA 118 of 199 and Desmond Ritter to 399 Falcons rookie Got Herbert for the Chargers numbered one 94 of 199 Stop mark. It's going man. It's going open some one-on-one. That stuff is fire We got some nice football mixers going on Graffiti Kyle Hamilton Ravens. Oh nice. You're saying you that's right. You're telling your talent You're gonna say to you Chris Johnson CJ 2k on the mirror signature 72 of 99 Titans Niners Tyrion Davis price rookie Jersey card numbered 17 of 399 It's one of the places. I've never been that I want to go in the United States of San Diego Jake Ferguson 75 and 99 rookie for the Cowboys Etn dark horses Jaguars 73 of 299 and Travada Walker Jags 70 of 275 Jags Edder Bruins are crushing it.  Yeah, I'm gonna stay at this point No, he's here for another 10 minutes Can be James Williams you have to Just Dallas Goddard 240 of 275 Eagles Bears Vilish Jones, Jr. Rookie Jersey 17 of 199 Travis Kelsey There's 44 of 149 silver-approval Chiefs Travis and oh, yeah Travis and Lane. No Travis Kelsey and Jason Kelsey Fadarian Mathis rookie commanders 105 of 399 in that redemption is a Demian Pierce Texans freshman fabric signatures bronze nice hit Texans Jet Zach Wilson 21 of 99 Mark Andrews Desmond Ritter graffiti having issues They're nice sneakers Jelani Woods on the rookie signatures Colts 5 out of 10 of the Jelani Woods 5 of 10 Colts Dobbins Browns David Bell rookie Jersey card again to 14 of 399 George Kittle to 349 Niners Graffiti blue James and Williams is 75. That's a nice one. They're good lions in the color match You should be back kind of soon. I think Bill's Khalil Shakira rookie to 66 of 325 Two more certified boxes then we have the four origins still Remember everybody all group breaks are sold out tonight. We only have one more after this one and Personals are also full So we'll resume breaks on Sunday.  It's an awesome one I think he's good, I just It's ups and downs. Yes gotta get consistent, but That team still pretty much stinks. Yeah, they can kind of run the ball now, but they ain't got no receiving threats Progress for sure Still making couple of yeah, you know Mac Jones 115 to 249 Patriots This is like basically his rookie year though. She was like a throw away. So yeah Redemption Titans trail on Berks rookie roll call signatures mirror teal nice hit Titans Clyde Edwards a layered sheets 40 of 75. Oh, there's an alive a rookie to 62 of 399 Saints Drake London graffiti Falcons Falcons Desmond Ritter on the rookie jersey card 57 of 149 40 of 75 seal of approval Ravens Mark Andrews. That is a super blue card Like super blue Caller Gordon Bears rookie 69 of 99 Zach Wilson Bluest card in existence It was gonna be saying the blues tomorrow is everybody that I beat in all these games Tremac bride Cardinals rookie patch auto freshman fabric 186 of 349 Joe burrow and Danny Gray rookie 46 to 199 Niners I'm gonna wake up and like stretch and I'll do have like a really healthy breakfast like Gotta get some carbs in me, you know I Some do it as soon as you get there. Where's the where's the friend you get like food immediately get that Good base. Yeah, you know. Yeah Engine music and fog is running the bus. Yes Gold team Brady. Oh, we need you over here to set that up. Come on. Yeah, we should take Paul with us. Absolutely fog machine Oh Big ol like late 80s boombox like comically big boombox Devon Lloyd rookie gold Jaguars 20 of 25 Boombox like like the one that 800 is holding right here. Yeah You go lions It's Sam with a chair Like a ladder match Texans John met you the third rookie patch card 186 of 249 Sub Jay Carlo James and Williams lions Wow one of 15 rookie patch auto piece of the game That is so cool. That is awesome. Do you can make this one? That's so cool Lions who's got him Keith be with the lions. That's gorgeous Now it's going to mag Coming back soon Brian Robinson junior commanders rookie 134 of 199 Paul must send Sam through a table I'm a sense Sam through a table that David Buster.  This is no place for children Danny Gray on the rookie patch card Niners 209 of 299 Ever been a David Buster's but everyone keeps telling me it's like the drinking place Breeze Hall Jets the first and last Jerry Judy 131 to 275 You sports cards. Yeah, yeah next time we're gonna have anything else is gonna be at the shop Yeah, it's like no more team building with you guys 138 399 Christian Watson Packers. The team is built Everything else is gonna be at the shop We'll never leave the shop again as a team Video games in here Here's a game you guys have fun. Yeah, you're at the bus with the games in it outside Yeah, it is rag Chuck E. Cheese for adults as a casino. Yeah Chuck E. Cheese Chuck E. Cheese pizza is not horrible listen. It's not horrible the salad bar is banging too It's good stuff like for a place you can go and take kids and skedaddle for like hours The pizza's fine Dolphins to a 92 and 99 Niners Eli Mitchell 28 of 299 Nice Steve Commander's rookie jumbo patch Sam Howell 105 of 199 Cowboys rookie auto Jalen Tolbert on card No, no drink no drink crystal lava a rookie jumbo patch auto Saints. There we go Saints Nice Steve Congrats, man That's crazy, I mean we should do it Pitman and Patterson bucks Leonard Farnett 147 of 299 and a Raiders Darren Waller 9 of 75 nice Ricky patchcards Steelers 9 of 75 Kenny Pickett and Packers rookie on card auto Romeo Dobbs Packers solid hit there Jets Garrett Wilson orange RPA 74 of 75 sweet hit jets That should be the next team building event the casino Get there at 6 p.m. Leave at 6 a.m. I'd go play Hold them like all night. I've never seen anybody. That's the one thing that sucks about that game Gibson for the commanders rookie Trevon Walker Jags got bears Justin Fields 240 of 299 commanders Antonio Gibson 12 out of 199 Titans rookie three color jumbo patch Traylon Birx 20 of 25 49ers rookie auto on card 14 and 99 terry and davis price In redemption going to the giants rookie jumbo jersey auto wandale robinson rookie david bell browns Rams Aaron donald 184 of 199 Raiders derrick car 15 of 299 saints chrysalov a rookie patch card 130 of 199 Colts rookie on card auto alec pierce There you go colts and a redemption on the back goes to the giants rookie jumbo jersey auto wandale robinson Is that back-to-back the same card? Sure is giants with a double dip right there. Let me set guys to do a recap Yeah, there's a lot of titans in this. Well, they have Obviously willis they have berks and haskins They're in a lot Commanders are in this a lot Jets are in this a lot. All right relics first saints chrysalov a Titans trail on berks steelers kennie picket commander sam howell Niners danie gray texas john mechie the third falcons desmond ridder Jags trevor laurence the 10 browns david bell Bears vealish jones jr. Niners terry and davis price and browns david bell Also, david bell is in everything Autos colts alec pierce giants two rookie jumbo jersey auto redemptions of wandale robinson Niners terry and davis price jets garret wilson Packers romeo dobs saints chrysalov a cowboys jalen tulbert Uh, browns gerome ford cardinals tray mc bride Titans redemption rookie roll call signatures mere teal trail on berks Colts jelani woods out of five of ten Texans damien pierce freshman fabric mirror signatures bronze redemption Titans chris johnson autos in ninety nine an rpa 800s in lions to one ninety Nine and we also hit a piece of the game Jamison williams one of 15 rookie patch on it with the dye coats That's gonna do it. Thanks again. Everybody origins case coming up


If you think about it, the Qur'an is the only speech on this earth that's not from here and it's Allah's words. I truly, truly believe from my heart that without the Qur'an, there's zero happiness. It's like being in a ship and the Qur'an is just riding you through that storm. And the dunya is a storm. It's not supposed to be a place of comfort. I would just say three things that my teachers instilled in me. The first is to make the intention. Make the intention with the Qur'an, no matter how lofty it is. And start small. The second thing is to always come with a clean heart. If we don't refine our hearts and work on our hearts constantly, the Qur'an will have no space in our heart. We can't have both. We can't have sinning and the Qur'an together in our hearts. And then the third thing is dua. Ask Allah for ease. The Qur'an is a roller coaster ride. It's not going to all be easy.


So hey guys welcome to come again if you're new make sure you hit the subscribe button and the little bell Count below hit the like button. I mean even share with your friends Good job. We have cookies and milk might be seen in that shirt Hi guys, welcome back to come again. I'm Shannon and on today's Back issue review. I'm gonna be reviewing Stanley's the traveler. This was done by Stanley Mark Wade and Chad Hardin It comes from boom comics and today. I'll be reviewing issues one and two I thought this was a pretty good read is pretty original. It was almost kind of what you would expect if The doctor from doctor who were a superhero not really one of Stanley's finest characters But a lot better than his late 90s early 2000s characters This revolves around the traveler who goes by the name Cronus He can manipulate time. He can freeze it slow it down speed it up and he has to Save these people from the split second men the split second men All three of them have different powers and they can travel through the seconds of time But the traveler has to save these three different people who are Pretty much in the wrong place at the wrong time Only they're no John McClane one of them is a detective by the name of Julia Martin. It's kind of hinted at that Cronus is her Boyfriend fiance husband.  He does have kind of a White hair it is revealed an issue too that her significant other is working with her father and his Business partner to create something that would actually manipulate time and matter like this So it's not really revealed in these two issues why the split second men are after these specific three people One of them is a lady who is running late for work She just bought a new pair of glasses and for some reason Cronus has to break her glasses It's not really revealed why the second person he helps is a Public transit bus driver. He saves him from a one of the split second man Who's the name of splinter? He can decay matter. What's funny is in the middle of saving the bus driver The traveler says to the driver. Do you know why splinter was able to grab and discuss integrate your bus the 1015? To which the driver kind of Responds a little bewildered and frightened No Traveler then turns to the driver and grabs him by the jacket Getting right in his face and exclaims because it's now 1022 and being seven minutes late put you in the wrong place at the wrong time That'll teach you you never gonna you ever gonna be late again obviously the driver hesitantly and kind of startled says no, I swear, but once I get up out of the sewers The traveler comes face to face with two detectives one of them being Julia Martin and he ends up saving her because Splinter is he sees a vision of the future a few seconds into the future where splinter puts his hand straight through Julia's chest and you know Decays her entire body and in issue two it's revealed that this of course was just him seeing into the future a few seconds and he moves her by altering her temporal position and by what he calls chronoporting Basically burrowing around this a few seconds There's also a scene where Kronos quickly uses his powers to pull a man who looks a lot like Stan Lee from his car And then hurl the car at splinter knocking him unconscious That's all I'm really gonna say about these two these aren't really standalone comics it's not like you can just pick up one issue and You know be caught up or anything you've got to really start from the beginning and Work your excuse me. I'm losing my voice Work your way through all the issues. I've got one and two so far. I've also got Number five Number ten so I'm gonna have to get the others to really find out what's actually going on It was however a pretty good read Like I said it is It isn't really Stanley's best work But it's a lot better than the heroes he created back in the late 90s early 2000s when they went straight to VHS So overall, I'll give it a seven out of ten It's published by boom studios and was released in 2010 So if you're at your local comic book shop chances are these will be in the dollar bin Spend a dollar a couple dollars get a few issues, you know And give it a chance. I think you might enjoy it So until next time guys Take care We're here for


An eyewitness captured the dramatic moment a burning helicopter crashed into an apartment complex in Pompano Beach of Florida on August 28th. The helicopter crash resulted in two people killed and at least four injured. One of the victims has been identified as firefighter Captain Terry son Jackson who was on board. According to local media the other victim was a woman who was on the ground when the accident occurred. The crash happened around 845 a.m. near North Dixie Highway and Atlantic Boulevard. The helicopter identified as a Eurocopter EC-135 collided with the building leaving a sizable hole in the roof emitting smoke and burnt debris.


So, we support all the bases down in Africa and so what we do is our primary principle is that as an Equal Opportunity Regional Director, the purpose of the program is to try to eradicate on-lawful discrimination, many types of on-lawful harassment or sexual harassment. And how do we do that is by getting out and talking to members and trying to make sure that members are provided a respectful and a dignity type environment that they deserve. That is our primary goal is to try to make it down to Africa as much as possible. It's a one-deep position, so I'm the support for all the bases down in Africa. It's something that normally you're used to working with a team, however we understand in a deployed environment, you just work with what you got, so if you're the only one in it, then you just do what you got to do to support your personnel down in downrange. The only challenge is trying to, like I said, at the end of the day you always want to be available to support anyone possible, so it's more the logistics is trying to make it down there as much as possible. My favorite part of the mission, to be honest, is just getting out and speaking with members and just learning about everyone's job. I said when we joined the military we all take pride in serving our country and we all take pride in what we do. So I think it's important for us to get to know what each member does and how they contribute to the mission. We want people to know who we are. Like I said, it's important that we not only are accessible, but if the members, we also want to be approachable. So if anybody has any concerns, we would love for people to address those concerns with us so that we can bring it up to their leadership to how to move forward and how to work what are concerns or issues that members are having. Yes, so like I said, we want to be visible. We want to offer anything that have members focused strictly on the mission. We understand that being in a deployed environment is a very stressful environment. And we understand that oftentimes when we're away from our normal work routine that these can happen. And like I said, we want to provide members an opportunity to come forward and address any issues that they're having in their work environment.