What's up everyone, the Nationals win game six. They go to a game seven. This game had it all. Bat runs, interference. Go ahead, home runs and an ejection. What's going on everybody? How are you doing? Welcome to Talking Baseball. We've got a fuckin' lot to discuss on this game. So much happened, so much happened. There's so many talking points. Very excited. My name is John Boyd. I'm coming to you from New Jersey. Jake, coming from Denver. I think they got nine inches of snow. Jake, how are you doing? Yeah, nine was an exaggeration. There's a half a foot out there from a couple days. There's a weird one. Don't normally get durations of snow like this.  But it was like a day and a half. It was actually kind of a cool snow globe effect. So avalanche. Yeah, that's the rumor. Avalanche and bat runs is what everyone's are talking about these days. Bat runs, you like that term? Bat runs, I don't, but I'm OK with it. It sounds so not swaggy, because I think it's not swaggy. Right. Well, there's a couple different things going on there. Yeah, bat runs, bat carries. Ooh, bat carries worse. Yeah, the bat runs felt like you just combined the two first things you thought of, and it works. Well, bat flip it, the same thing. Right, drop, bat hold. And hold the carry, the baton pass. I don't know. There's so many different ways you can go with it. We're making up new baseball. And Jim, we had some tech issues. I think we got a couple of people that are riding out the storm with us, Denver Storm.  But yeah, man, I loved everything. During the game, I hated everything after the game. Yeah, well, I didn't, because a lot of people want to break down, so I got some up. I got three breakdowns up of this game already, and there's a fourth one coming after this. So I have some marshmallows to reward myself. Yeah, eight, now seven. Now seven, I'm putting them in my coffee. OK. There's going to be a nice little treat. Wow. So I'm excited. Yeah, the conversation's after the game. And we'll get into it, because that's what everyone wants to talk about. And we will be talking about the interference call, ejection, first ejection in World Series in some amount of years. I forget. Since Bobby Cox in Atlanta. Bobby Cox. Bobby Cox.  Chip Hale's a winner, man. Warrior. Chip Hale fought as good of a fight as he could against someone he couldn't fight back against. Chip Hale, if it was an NFL game, Chip Hale would have had like five holding penalties. He did his best, man. Dave Martinez was bull rushing. Dude, that was funny. Chip Hale is the assistant or bench coach or whatever. And he was trying to hold Dave Martinez back if you haven't seen it. It was wild, man. There was a second. And you could see it in like the frames of the video, where Dave Martinez, it looks like he could have got a shot in against the home plate ump. And I'm kind of rooting for it. He was actually more mad at the other ump, who's I don't know what he said. But he was yelling at the home plate ump. And then the other ump said something.  Set it off, yeah. And then he's making a huge scene.  And that's right before he got ejected. And it's like, Dave, come on. Everyone's like 50,000 people are looking at you, man. Yeah. Eyes on you currently. Oh, there's so much to talk about. I'm excited for game seven, man. Hey, we got another game of baseball. We got this series to a game seven. So good job by the series. Good job by the series. Good job by the Astros not caring, thinking they were going to win the first two games. Good job by Justin Verlander, falling off a little bit at the right time. Things worked out. Yeah. Do you have a burn?  Oh, yeah. So your art has the annoyance of the debate wage you down from your excitement of everything that happened? No, I'd say, and yeah, I might as well get these out. Obviously the debate call. And I don't know, for some of the baseball stuff, I tried to not to watch it before we get on, but I saw you posted it this morning. I was waiting for you. And I was like, you know what, I want to listen to this a little bit just to see, because if you and me were on a different page, we might not make it through the whole episode to be completely honest. And I clicked on it. You're talking about my breakdown? Yep. And I think the first word that I heard you say was judgment call. And the fact that so many people have lost sight of what those words mean, it's mind blowing to me. I'm not a person with a good brain. I openly admit that. But the fact that so many people are being vehement about a judgment call, when guess what? The worst judgment was used. Like, yes, everything from there was followed up. They couldn't review it. They could not challenge it. You're totally right. But the judgment was wrong.  And that's the part that really made me mad after the game was Joe Tory came in defense. Well, I mean, we're getting into it, but. And then Bregman and Soto both walking down off their bat runs, or their run bats, or whatever you're calling them. That was the most disappointing thing of the night. Oh, OK. I disagree with you. I like their responses, because I think that's a whole let's burn it. And then we have so much to talk. So there's a little preview of all the conversations we're going to have. I am excited. Burn, Jackie, burn! World Series Game 6, a rematch of Game 2 with a much different vibe. Justin Long, Verlander, and the Stroes with the chance to be accepted as a new dynasty if they weren't win versus Stephen Colbert, Strasburg, who are hoping his Nats could have one more daily show. Top one, Tony Rendoni! Slaps a shift-beating RBI single to give his Nats an early lead. But here's a tip, kids. Butterfly that glove, because Houston Nuo's coming in the first. Play the music! Jose Altuve! Jose Altuve! RBI, Zach Fly, speaking of Fly, Alex Bregman hits the scared little kid home alone home run, because he's walking around with his baseball bat. Astros 2, Nats 1 after 1. Bull starters would lock in until top five. Adam Levine eating with the moves like Jagger solo job to tie it. Mr. Soto Dolo, Juan Solo for the lead. He carries his bat for protection as well. 3-2, Nats, top seven. Controversy on the Trey Tina Turner interference.  Tony Tubax comes out with a double in the ninth for the Geico runs. But how about Stephen Strasburg? 8.1, 7Ks, 2-earn run only in the first. Do little, does a little as 7-2, Nats, final. We are going to game 7. Jakey Burns walking like a kid home alone with his baseball bat. When else does someone walk around with a baseball bat? That's kind of it. Spot the lie. Every now and then, I just do a little jo-tory where I just have a baseball bat in my hand. You know how I used to sit and dug out. I actually have a mini hockey stick that I found recently in the closet, and I've just been holding that. But yeah, it's pretty good. Now I want to talk about Strasburg. I want to talk about so much about this game. Strasburg is the real- Let's do some baseball first, because it was really good baseball. Strasburg is the real deal, Motherfuckers. Yeah, man. 8.1, and so the next breakdown I want to do, I said I want to do another one, is on the tipping pitches. So in his post game, he said, oh, yeah, I had to start shaking my glove, because they were all over me. They saw it was coming. After the first inning, he went into the tunnel, and his pitching coach, I don't know what coach, he was like, thank God, he let me know. And after that, he goes scoreless for 7.1.   And there's been so much about pitch tipping this World Series. What I think has gotten overlooked on this, I mean, Gurriel hit a bomb to left after Bregman. Al Tuve got some decent wood on it. And again, knowing what we know now that those were essentially going to be the only runs Strasburg was going to give up, because he was tipping his pitches. I mean, think about how much different, like what would we be saying about Stephen Strasburg right now if he gave up three in the first, or four in the first. How much leash does he get later in the game? Do they panic and go to Scherzer? Like, that's right off the rip, something that I don't think is being talked about at all that could have totally affected this World Series. Stephen Strasburg, everyone. Yeah, he gave up two hits in the first, and then two hits the rest of the way. Two runs in the first, and then two runs, and then zero runs the rest of the way. I want to go look into it and see what he was doing with his glove. Because he said he started shaking his glove before we pitch and flaring it. Yeah, he started butterflying it. And so yeah, I don't know if it was hand position, like that was the glass no-thing or whatever, but he went full butterfly the rest of the game. It's pretty cool. Yeah. And I mean, will he get World Series MVP if the Nats win? I think this is something we do at the end. There's a few different candidates for each team. A guy had five RBIs in this game, but you'd have no idea because he looked like he was at his family barbecue having a good time. I really can't look at just straight stats for World Series MVP, just my personal opinion. Because like Rendon's last two, while important, his first two were even more important. But really, the Eaton home run was the most important swing and then the Soto home run. Eaton and Soto had the most important swings. Yeah. And I mean, you say those last two aren't important, but it was a three-run game. If Sean Doolittle lets two runners on base. I shouldn't have said they're not important. I just think there were bigger swings and moments. And some of these games where you just like stacking stats works for Hall of Fame and stuff for me. And even for like regular season MVP, I don't care. But like when you have the small sample size, like who changed the game? But I'm not trying to knock Rendon. He had a fantastic game. Yeah. And I mean, Soto's got three homers, including the one to take the lead in this one. Strasburg with two wins and how crazy he's been. I mean, what if Max Scherzer goes out and wins game seven tonight?  And it's same with the Astros. I know where. Did you hear my patterns tweet? I did not see your patterns tweet. I must have missed the pattern. Scherzer, this 2009 playoffs opened up with Scherzer. That wasn't a pattern tweet. That was a poetry tweet. Someone responded poetry and someone responded pattern. So I liked it. But it's pretty cool. Scherzer opened up the 2019 playoffs. They started with him pitching in a do or die game for both teams. And the last game of the 2019 postseason will have Scherzer starting a do or die game for both teams. Cool. Yeah. Hashtag cool. Hashtag cool. All right. So they open up right away and they get the Nats actually score first. Verlander has first inning woes. But they only push one across. And it's very much small ball. Eaton bunts to move him over. Beats out an infield single. Trey Turner, kind of a bigger storyline later on. And then bunts him over. And then how do you get the third? How did he score? He scored? What's the question? How did the Nats score? Rendon. Rendon hit a shift beating single. Yes. He was on second. And he was on second. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I knew it was a single. So they small ball Verlander, which Eaton, man. And he's going to get overlooked in all this melee. Eaton had a crazy game. Sackpont that helped push a run across, a walk, game tying home run. And then what did he do in his last step at it? Something else that was positive. Hit by pitch. Hit by pitch.    Verlander first inning woes again. I wonder how much that creeps into the mindset of just the dugout. And Verlander are like, ugh. But they've returned fire immediately. They take the lead in the first. And I've got to be honest. From then on, the place was rocking. And I was like, that's might be it. Like, that's there's a lot of momentum here. But baseball doesn't care about that. You and Lindsay Edler with the athletic, we're having a little bit of like, oh, we've seen this Astros game about five times this playoffs already. The other team will stay close. Houston will have a break and then a big inning and call it a game. But yeah, Houston rallied. And I think the biggest at bats in the game were top of the third. Justin Verlander had just retired seven in a row. And then Adam Eaton comes up. He goes down 1-2. Foul ball, three straight balls, seven pitch walk. So you're like, OK. A, you broke up Verlander, seven hitters in a row streak. B, you keep him out on the mound to throw more bullets. So Rendon comes up after him. He goes down 1-2. And then he has that 10 pitch at bat, which he ends up that ends up in a walk. So Justin Verlander just went from cruise control to now he's got two on with Soto. And he's in basically a 25 pitch inning. He gets Soto to ground out. But I think the bigger thing there is A, Verlander had to work. And he looked like, invincible again. Like, you thought there was a chance that Justin Verlander locked in and was the Justin Verlander we've known for the past few years. And the bigger thing, that's the heart of their lineup. And they just saw a lot of Verlander pitches. And you saw it come around the next round of at bats. That's a great, great find. Great call. A lot of people probably talking about because it's just two walks that led to nothing. But in the grand scheme of things, so many pitches were thrown. So many pitches were seen. Great call, Jake. I didn't even have that a nugget in my head because Soto grounds out to end that inning. Yeah. But yeah, if he gets eaten there, then it's what, retires eight in a row and Verlander's sitting pretty going into the fourth? It would have been eight in a row and he would have been essentially quick math. He would have been like 45 pitches through three. Instead, I think he was closer to 60, something like that. Wow. That's cool. That's how much it can change.  Oh, man. And then the next action really was the fifth inning when the Nationals take the league and Eaton goes deep. What was it, a 1-0 pitch or a 0-1 pitch? Well, I think in the fourth, the Nats got a couple guys on. Kendrick had a single and then Zimmerman walked. And again, I think it was kind of that wear out effect again. And then that inning end with that Jan Gomes kind of fake foul ball homer. You were like, yo, did he rock that? Wait, is that foul? Oh, it's fair, Brantley caught it. That was weird. But you saw Verlander starting to work a little bit and then, yeah, Turner fouls off. Eaton gets him with the home run kind of a slider over the middle. Rendon flies out and then Soto with the bat run. The bat run, yeah.  Just hanged it and Eaton crushed it. The Soto at bat, I did a little breakdown on it because I was doing the bat run breakdown. He gets a 2-0 fastball that he gets into a 2-0 count. He's geared up for Verlander's fastball, but Verlander gets him high fastball. He just fouls it back. And Soto's thinking, damn, that was my shot. Then comes that man. Then comes the 2-1 pitch, right? And Verlander tries to go the same high fastball, but bring it inside on him. And he misses a tiny bit. But Verlander is yelling that it was a strike. And the ump said, no, it's a ball. And then you can see Soto say, no, that's a ball, but you can see Soto just locked in like, oh, yeah. He's going to bring that again because he wants to prove it's a strike. He thinks that was a really good pitch that he just didn't get the call on. So he's going to throw that motherfucker again.  That was a bomb. And then this can go into the bat run conversation and the quotes about it after the game. So Braggman hits his home run. He carries the bat all the way to the first base coach and tries to hand it off to him. And the Astros first base coach wanted nothing to do with it.  Like, I'm not just going to carry your bat for you. And Altuve's reaction was very much cringe. Like, yeah, that's not good.  Because they lost. But even his own teammates and his first base coach like weren't into it. Like, that's like, yeah, that's not necessary. It's good entertainment. But what were his comments? That's what baseball needs. Baseball needs more entertainment. I mean, I loved all of it. But my opinion is it didn't come off as like Braggman's a badass. It came off as like, dude, that's a little much. Yeah, that's I agree with that. I saw, you know, there's a couple of counselors like, are you believing this dude? Braggman, man, he's doing it again. It's like, no, like it's it's something. I mean, we just we're making up fake terms to call it. So it's something new, different and entertaining, which I like that. But yeah, to think it's like a badass or rebellious or anything like, no, I'm not angry that he did it. It's good for baseball that he's having fun. But my personal opinion is like, it didn't come off as like, that was cool. So anyway, when Juan Soto, because everyone's like, you got to throw at him, blah, blah, when Juan Soto does it. That's the perfect retaliation. Like, that's what makes it fun.  Got to get the backdrop in for Soto. And they're both go ahead home runs. So I like the symmetry there. It's Soto's comments. Now, maybe I'm just reading this into how I want to read into them. I because I didn't hear them. I I read them as very tongue in cheek. Like, oh, yeah, when I saw him do it, I thought it looked cool. So I thought I'd do it as well. Not honest. No, I think. Yeah, I think I think you're doing that. You're forgetting that he's there. There's a rumor out there he's 21 years old. But yeah, I don't know. I loved our buddy Craig Calcuttaira, who's if you don't follow him on the on the Twitter sphere, he's a little bit loose cannon, I guess, for the baseball community. He had my favorite quote. Let me let me see. Oh, so he he did after the game. He goes AJ hit. Bregman shouldn't have carried that bat. And then he does Dave Martinez. Soto shouldn't have done it either. Bregman, I'm sorry I did that. Juan Soto is awesome. Bregman did it. So I thought it'd be fun too. All this is so fun. And then he just ends it with a and a little child shall lead them. Yeah, I liked Soto's quotes after it. And I like that Bregman kind of because he did it first. So and they lost.  Yeah, you have to. So I mean, I liked everything about that. I mean, I again, I don't think Bregman looked cool. I've been on here a lot saying I like Bregman. I like that he plays the bad guy. Yeah, I just it hurts me that when it was happening live, it was awesome. Like, OK, Bregman does it. He hits the big home run.  He kind of turned around his whole postseason. And then he does he does something new, which I mean, take it how you want it. But I mean, we're we're here talking about it. And then Soto matches it in copies. And you're like, yes, yeah, that's exactly how this is supposed to happen. And then afterwards and during it, everyone's like, yeah, let the kids play bat flips. We got bat runs. Oh, we're doing all sorts of stuff. And then immediately after the game, everyone comes off of it with the Joe Tory stuff. I'm like, come on, everyone. Like, we just had one of the best nights in baseball in a long time. And now we're walking away. I hear you there. And that Craig Calcuttaire Tweet School, because Soto was the only one that was like, why would I apologize? It was fun. Right. And hey, eventually that's what will be happening. You know, it's slowly getting grandfathered in. So that's cool. It was cool. I was shocked when Eaton and Soto went back to back. Like, I was like, oh my god. And I got to think Houston feeling the same way. Or the fans. Yeah. Just utter gut punch.  And Jim, I don't know where you go to check out the pitch sequencing. But every pitch to Soto and that at bat was a high fast ball. He started with too high away. And then it's the one that Soto fouls off. And then it's the missed up and in pitch. But everything is a four seam fast ball, 94 to 96, to the guy that's the best high fast ball hitter in Major League Baseball. And like, I know Verlander lives up there. But A, Verlander, you haven't had the same gusto. And B, this is the dude that's best at it in baseball. So I don't know. If I'm a Houston fan, I would be questioning that. In the fifth inning, you don't throw one breaking ball? I'd have to look at what he threw Soto and is at bat beforehand, because Verlander very much has pre-written plans of how he's going to attack guys. You know what I mean? And we saw it with Robles. I was trying to have a lot of fun with that, because he was straight up bullying Robles. Torture, yeah.  Treated him like a pitcher in the National League. Like, not a care in the world. There weren't even good fast balls. They were just here, fucking, you can't hit that. Let's get on with you. Then his next at bat, threw a get me over breaking ball for strike one. Like, you're not going to swing at this. Then pulled the string a little bit to get him to swing and miss. Then pulled the leash even more to get him to fully chase with the check swing.  Yeah, I'm sorry, team Robles right now, either. He got a couple tough calls. Young guy versus Verlander. Never mind kind of the hangover from the other game. And then I think what leads us to next that gets overlooked is that the Nationals do that. They take the lead off of two solo homers, one to two to three to two. Soto mimics Houston's MVP. Bottom five, the very next half inning, Redick gets a single to set the table for the top of the order and Springer hits another double. It's second and third one out and that Altuve at bat.  The Altuve at bat versus, wait, which Altuve at bat? I might have been making a breakdown and missed it. So top, it's bottom five. Okay, so I was definitely making a bat run breakdown. So I missed this. Okay, so what happened? So Redick singles, he sets the table for the top of the order. So it's one out, Redick on first, Springer double. Second and third one out, Jose Altuve at the plate. He throws his dirtiest pitch of the game. He throws a high change up that just makes Altuve look silly. And then he throws a curveball that Altuve falls off, so it's 0-2. And he just bounces one in the dirt. The whole world, it was coming. Smoltz, he said it on the broadcast. He's like, Jan Gomes, you better be ready. Like, everyone knows what's about to happen, but it's how good does it look? Can Altuve lay off? Or if it's not good enough, what can Altuve do with it? He threw an awesome curveball, made Altuve look silly. I remember that now, because I remember thinking, wait, he didn't foul that? I thought like the way it looked, he had to have foul tipped it. And then they just walked away and I was like, oh, he swung and straight up missed that? Yeah, he swung through it and you saw, in slow motion, you could almost see the mindset of Altuve like, okay, it looks like it's gonna have a lot of the play. It's probably the curveball. Okay, it's definitely the curveball. It's a good curveball. Let me go defensive mode and he still couldn't get it. And then even more overlooked, because Strasburg threw some filth there and Altuve got work. Brantley hit one on the laces, but it was right at Turner and he makes the nice pick on it. But that ball, if Turner doesn't pick that ball, we'd be like, oh, that was a hot shot. Turner did his best to stay in front of it, but he makes the play and that stops the instant kind of counter punch. Yeah. Big, do you think they should've let Strasburg keep going? I mean, a little bit. I've always had a little bit of that in me. Unless like, I don't know if they think those 10 pitches give Strasburg a Hail Mary chance to come into tomorrow or today, excuse me. Otherwise, yeah, I would've let him finish it to kind of make a World Series memory. But I don't know, at the same time, do little comes in and kind of does his thing. So it's moot. Yeah. All right, let's get to the fun conversation. The interference. Yes. Trey Turner, I'm gonna try and come at this as, as hinged as possible or whatever, you know? Cause I, cause part of me hates the people telling me they made the right call. And I feel like the personality that says that is just like the personality that would go be an umpire. So that's my rude comment, I guess. Okay. There's two issues here, Jake.  So let's divide those right away. Sure. The rule is that if the batter, the rule is it's a judgment call. So there's no hard X's and O's. And if the ump thinks that the runner got in the way of the ball, he can make that call. So by rule, it's totally allowed that the umpire makes this call.  The issue is whether you think that should have been called. Trey Turner runs straight line. He doesn't know where the throw is coming. He has no idea what to do. And the rule says you have to be on the, you know, the last 45 feet, you have to be making your way to foul territory, to touch the bag, which is in fair territory. And he kind of does that. Like his last couple of steps, he lunges over. He rode the line for longer than he probably should have. So like by rule, you can say that that was interference. I think that that's crazy to use that judgment there because he really didn't go out of his way. He didn't even, he beat the throw anyway. There's, it's just nonsense that never gets called. Every runner, right-handed runner runs in that same path when they're trying to leg out an infield single. It's impossible not to. And you don't see that get called so often. If you watch the LB, I could put a montage together of right-handed runners trying to beat out infield singles and I guarantee they all make that same path. But then what the people will say is, well, does it matter his path? It just matters that he got in the way of the glove. And that's where we get into, well, it's a judgment call.  Yeah, so that's the rule thing we covered to a degree. And I mean, there's people online debating cause it's three feet from the line. It's not just that box, it's the dirt itself. And you've got people, some people are mixing softball rules and baseball rules. There's, I mean, it's a nightmare out there right now. It's a judgment call. It's a judgment call. If they had called this the other way, I think Joe Tory would be up there after the game saying, yep, that's the umpire's judgment. He made the right call just because it was a judgment call. So whatever the ump calls there and says is right, I mean, it's kind of like the, a little bit the Joe West home run call from last year. Like that was his judgment, so that was the call. If his judgment had been that it was a home run, that judgment would have been right. So that's where judgment's getting lost is kind of unfathomable for me a little bit. But yeah, and you, I think it's funny. Everyone's talking about like, well actually, you know, for the fielder or the pitcher, they're told to throw at that runner cause there's a chance they get that girl. Guess what?  If you've ever been a third baseman catcher or a pitcher trying to make that throw to first base and you see a base runner in the way, it's like a defensive back. So then you're saying, okay, am I about to hit this guy? What if I miss him? It rolls into the outfield. Like that's, it's a whole game of cat and mouse that kind of isn't organic in the game of baseball, but it's kind of coach both ways. Trey Turner did none of that. You see a lot of guys who hit tappers and you'll see them run into the glass, grass, excuse me, to kind of get in the way as a mind fuck. He didn't do any of that. He ran straight there. And I think that's what's getting lost in interpretation. Everyone's like, well, he wasn't in the box. He wasn't running in the box. Well, he was running on dirt and that's the judgment call there. The umpire could have easily made the judgment like, no, he was running where he was supposed to be. And I don't know. I mean, there's- If he didn't call it, do you think there would be anybody? Like, so take the people that are saying, actually, that's the right call. Do you think that same person that's arguing that, if he didn't call interference, would those same people be commenting, that was interference? Because I don't think so at all. I'd say right now it's the internet's kind of 90-10. It was the wrong call. And I think there would be a 10-90 the other way. It would be mostly Houston fans saying like, well, it's the umpire's judgment and he could have decided this and he got in Gurriel's way. So yeah. Yeah, Houston fans. So you gotta take Houston and Nashville fans out of it and naturally they have a bias. But yeah, I think you'd lose some of the umpire point dexter people because it would be the umpire's judgment that he was safe. And they'd say, hey, that's the umpire's judgment. He's in the line there. So that was his call. I don't think you'd have, I don't think you'd have, of the 100% of people that are currently saying, it was the right call, it's definitely interference. I think 90% of them would not have this opinion if the call was called safe and no interference. I think 90% of them wouldn't be out there like, how did they not call interference? That's interference. No one would do that. I think the people arguing this are just people that are point dexter lawyer people. Yeah. I think it's a very much, well, actually, crowd. Yeah, I wouldn't say it's lawyer crew. I'd say it's people that got into umpiring for the wrong reasons.  And I'd be like, well, I did too.    Like I went through a full week of five-hour sessions of ump classes when I was in high school, middle school. Like everyone did that. That doesn't make me know more than anyone else, just reading rules. Yeah, I mean, if you're thinking I didn't apply to the job that gave me 30 bucks mozzarella sticks in Swedish fish for every game, I mean, you have no idea who I am. I was, I tweeted out something that was wrong because I thought they were replaying it because that's what the broadcast said. And then the ump comes out of the replay and says, no, he's out. Why did he do that? Because the whole stadium had no idea what was going on. The stadium had official replay up on the big board. I know, it wasn't being replayed until like what? Everyone assumed it was replay because they went there. So I think the ump was just clarifying for the stadium because it was clearly a hubbub. Yeah, okay. So I think he kind of decided he had to do something. When Trey Turner was calling out Joe Torrey, I thought he was calling out Joe Torrey to find out if he was like safe or not safe or like what the answer to the replay was. And I was like, what? That doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense. They couldn't replay it. It's not a reviewable call. That needs to be looked at so thoroughly. Okay, let's have a big meeting and let's lay down what calls right now aren't replayable or aren't reviewable and let's grandfather some of these in. Catchers interference should be reviewable.  Almost all of them should be reviewable. And so Trey Turner's like, Joe Torrey's right there. Ask him. So the next question was it's not reviewable. So Dave Martinez says, okay, well, if it's not reviewable then I want to protest this game. And they are like, well, we don't know if you can protest it based on this and like, what the fuck? We want to protest it. So they go to New York and they ask New York, hey, can they protest this game? And New York was reading them the rules of protesting to find out. And Trey Turner knew this. So he sees Joe Torrey and he's like, why don't you just ask him? He knows. Ask him if we can protest it. Which Trey Turner's in the heat of the moment and it makes so much sense. But I thought he was asking them to give the replay, which is insane. But no, he knew what was going on. But I don't know, man. I don't think Joe Torrey's going to like Trey Turner when he hears all the... Yeah, Joe Torrey's getting old a little bit. Like Joe, Joe Torrey's not as... That's the next part of this convo. Yeah, Joe Torrey's not as hip as he used to. So no, he's not a Trey Turner fan. We don't know if he's a John Boy fan. He had a meeting about it. Yeah. But yeah, and that was... There was a couple funny things going on there. So they added for the World Series a level of insurance if Omsk got something wrong that they could call New York for a rules check. So that's technically what that was. And I don't know if you saw Dave Martinez's interview after the game, but they were like, so Dave, what were you actually appealing? And he's like, well, he mentioned the rules challenge thing and I wanted them to double check the rules. And then he goes, and I wanted them to make sure they watched that replay a few times. Just in like this coy, like you guys know this is wrong. I don't care what that book says. I don't care what the dude on either end of the phone says. So that was pretty funny. And then yeah, I loved what Trey Turner was doing because that was the classic like, I'm trying to think of a good Jakey example.  He knows that's kind of what he was doing with Joe Torey. That's fine. But when he was saying the part where like, and he's just ducking his head hiding, why are you hiding? And then saying it loud enough to try and get Joe to hear him. Like that was like, oh no, dude, just step back, stuff.  At one point I was like, shut up, Trey. Well, and they had a hot mic on him for a couple of seconds that was like, hey, I mean, I'm all four mics normally, but right now you do not want that mic on in front of Trey Turner. Yeah, I'm kind of over the let's interview athletes at their most heightened senses of irrationality. Yeah. It's kind of like, we're gonna put a mic in front of their faces when their brains are going so fast, even like in-game interviews with managers, like the immediate post-game interview, like it's like, that's a lot to do. That's what I sent you a clip a while back. I don't know if you remember, it was Bill Simmons and Rosillo and they were talking about like, this whole thing needs to be overhauled. Like it's ridiculous, like even after a game that we're interviewing like naked guys after they blew the game, like why do we have to do that? Like the whole process is really weird when you think about it. But yeah, that's a little disconnect. How'd you feel to just blow that game?  It's like- Whoa, be a professional. You just lost a Super Bowl Cam Newton. What are you, mad? What are you, upset? Come on.  Anyway, and this leads me into pulling Joe Torre aside. I love Joe Torre. I mean, Yankee fan, he's like my great grandpa.  He taught me that it's okay to cry. Big Joe Torre fan. Verducci pulling Joe Torre aside after the game. When we know Torre hasn't really seen replays, talked to officials, read the rules, gone over it, and pulling him aside and thinking that he's gonna give you something worthwhile just on the spot is insane to me. When they did that, Jake, on National TV, I went, oh no, this isn't gonna be a good look for anyone. Like what's old man Joe Torre gonna say on the spot?  And then people are gonna hang on to his quotes, let the dude go to his office, talk to his officials and his crew, read the rules, watch all the angles, then make a statement, like what are we doing? So people are upset with what Joe Torre said.  I would have ducked that if I was Joe Torre, like no, no, no, no, no. I need to figure out my point of view first. Yeah, and I'll preface my statement too, which again, think about, if you were looking to leave your five-star review and say, well, hey, these guys are Yankee fans. Yeah, we are open about that. We love Joe Torre. Joe Torre is a part of our life. And there was just, it was kind of one of these woe baseball moments where it's like, okay, you know, we just saw Juan Soto have an incredible series. Jordan Alvarez is the first player born in 1995 to Homer in a World Series. Trey Turner's a young, great player. Everything that's going on here. Oh, let's kick it to our rules, guys. 79-year-old Joe Torre. And this isn't like, I don't wanna be hella-agist.  I don't know if those words have been combined before, but I thought that was funny in my head. You're being hella-agist. Think about someone you know that is 79-years-old. Got it. It's one, I got another way to put it. It's one year away from being 80. It's one year away from being 80-years-old. And just think about what your image is of an 80-year-old person. And hey, Joe Torre's in great shape. He sounds good. But think about the position he was put in. It's like what you said. They threw a microphone in front of him. He did a press conference after the game. That's fine. That's normal. The press conference after the game is good, but the mic when they're not even done celebrating, I'm like, this is irresponsible.  And he, I don't know, like he still had some good Joe Torre in him. Like they asked about the phone call and he's like, yeah, it took way too long. And it was like, oh, that was good. Normally you want to hear someone in his position say something that honestly. But yeah, the whole thing was a mess and it's like, yes, he defended him because the one thing that Joe Torre was ready to go to war with and probably why he agreed to the interview was, it's a judgment call and judgment calls can't be reviewed. That's it. Yeah, yep. All right, let's take a quick break and then we will come back and talk about this upcoming game seven, which is going to be wild. All right, I got my wish, Jake. Part of my wish has come true. Everyone kept asking me, what are you rooting for? Who are you rooting for? Who are you rooting for? And I said, I'm rooting for extra innings in game seven. It's a possibility. Game sevens here, little sadness. It's the last baseball game until April or March 28th or whatever. But strap in. We got Scherzer on the bump versus Granky and the kitchen sinks for both teams. I mean, this is going to be please, please call your friends, have a party, enjoy the game. Let's have a party. Yeah, man. Scherzer, I think it, no, I don't want to start with Scherzer because I think everyone wants to start with Scherzer and I'm actually going to go to my dude, Granky. And I think that's the wild card here. Like the story is going to be Scherzer because he missed the start, he was hurt, he gets a quarter zone shot. And he's like, it's funny that Mack Scherzer is like a half tier up from Zach Grinky, but that half tier just seems so much more impressive. Like Mack Scherzer, it's like, oh, he's one of the pitchers of this decade. He's going to be a Hall of Fame or three times Cy Young. And then it's funny, like coming into this postseason, it was Zach Grinky, he's got a sneaky Hall of Fame argument. And now I saw a couple of tweets about it and I was like, oh, I actually love that storyline. But they said it, like if Zach Grinky has a special start tonight, he could be like punches taken to the Hall of Fame, which that's hilarious, but I also think there's some truth to it. I think he's got a good case already, but yeah, this would be like, you know, because as much as people don't want to admit that Hall of Fame voting is human and emotional, it is to a degree and nice guys to the media will get in over dickheads to the media because the media votes. Harold Baines. What's that? Harold Baines, the Harold, the Harold Baines like old, like he got to the old man committee that gets to vote you in. And like one was the next teammate, I think two were, one was the next manager and one was his ex owner or something like that. So yeah. Yeah, so and emotionally, if Grinky does have like a special outing tonight, I think it's immense it. It just kind of how, yeah, just how it works. Man, the hitters are hitting home runs, win ball games. If you're still out there trying to say, home runs don't win a game in the playoffs. Well, how many solo shots that we have and two run shots have we had in the last couple of games? This whole World Series is solo shots and two run shots. It's a walk in a home run league. And by the way, he was mentioned before, but Anthony Rendon's five RBIs, A, the first one to start the game that gets the Nationals on the board. The two run homer that nullifies that whole conversation we just said, which would be a giant black eye on the sport. And that's my final thing I want to send at all the point textors. So you think it was a good call if the World Series was lost on that and that's what everyone would be talking about the sport, a baseball for five months?  It would be laughable. So yeah, good for Tony, meatballs for putting just a casual five Ruby day. Wanted to get back to him. Okay. So, I mean, I've got a lot of hitters doing good things on both sides now, which is exciting. You got Granky versus Scherzer. Someone asked in the chat, who's not available? I think that's a great question. And I think Verlander is the only pitcher not available for Houston. Yeah, but I'd counter that with, tell that to Justin Verlander. Like, I think no. If there was like one right hand batter to get out of an inning, I mean, he'll be out there. I agree with that, but for the most part, I think. I think everyone else, like no one went more than- So, Rosberg and Verlander aren't really available. Yes, and everyone else is. I mean, Corbin's available, Aniball's available, Cole is available. Everyone's available, besides Strasberg and Verlander. I think Strasberg is straight unavailable, obviously. I think, come on, he's not gonna do that. Yeah, it would have to be, Strasberg would have to be almost extenuating circumstances like a 10th or 11th inning. And like a couple batters. Yeah. That's awesome. That's really cool. Oh, man. I hope this is a good game. I hope it's a really good game. I don't know, man. Do you, Scherzer pitched in what? Game one? Mad Max. He pitched in game one. Yeah, seven, or five innings pitched, two earned run, seven Ks, 112 pitches in those five innings. So they made them work a lot. They went Corbin to Rainey for one out and then that was Hudson and Doolittle each getting 1.1. Hudson not having the best of series. I don't think you can trust Rainey. I think the goal is Scherzer, Corbin, Anibal if you need him. Anibal is available. And then Hudson and Doolittle. Do you think that the Nats are seeing red? Ooh, John Boy, first take. I don't think momentum really matters, but if you were to do the discussion, I think the Nats are watching that replay over and over and even though they won the game and they're watching Davy Martinez get ejected, and even though they won the game and they push it to game seven, I think they're kinda gonna come out in a blind rage. The Ups won the Nationals the World Series. I mean, that's what it is. Dave Martinez has the easiest pregame speech ever. Sots first to everyone.   Let's win the World Series. Yeah. Done. A.J. Hinge's pregame is, hey, we're good. We're best human baseball. Yeah, we're gonna stay to our game. The numbers are there for us.  I don't know. It's tough. Do it for Tovman. Oh, yeah. Yips. I apologize, it's a bad joke. Bad joke. Edit that out. Yeah, I guess that's the part where I don't really know. Like, Mack Scherzer versus Grinke, if anyone's been listening to Talkin' Baseball, you know I'm takin' Scherzer.  I don't know, Garrett Cole's kind of the wild card, right? When would they hand it off to him? Cause Garrett Cole's got what, three innings maybe? Yeah, maybe. So I mean, is that, if they're up three-one and Grinke's struggling and in the fourth, does that mean it's Garrett Cole time? I don't know. Yeah. He's the one, he's what I can't get my mind wrapped around cause he could be a true game over. The great equalizer. So, I don't know and I'll be honest, there's obviously a little bit of me at this point that is rooting for the Nationals just cause it's the old guys. Like I said, the Astros, the Astros started celebrating their second world series. Let's be honest. Maybe not the players, but the fans for sure. Here's where I'm at. Here's where I'm at with the Astros. Still like watching a lot of their players. Atuve, Cole, Verlander, even Braggman I like that he brings this talking point to the table, you know? I was rooting for them in certain games. But Jake, Nationals fans haven't annoyed me in the slightest. Right. I haven't had any Nationals fans in my mentions being obnoxious, defensive and crying.    But now you've annoyed me and Nationals fans have been nothing but pleasant. So go get it, Nats. Yeah. But again, I don't really care.  That would be cool. That would be a really good moment. Joe Carter, big daddy. Yeah, and I don't know. It is tough to let the internet affect your thoughts because I literally just read a tweet that was like, oh, you guys are just mad. The Astros won the World Series last year and it's like, well, it's actually, it's the Red Sox last year, but I don't wanna do this. So it's tough to let those people affect you. No, Astros fans want us to be rivals. I don't care about the Astros. I care about the Red Sox and I put a lot of energy into hating them and I don't put energy into hating any other team. Don't care. Yeah, I don't know. See, I'm a little, there's a little more NBA in me. Like I like a little more short-term rivalries and yeah, they've been two of the better teams in the ALCS. So there's something fun there to say, like Houston's our daddy, which I saw some of those tweets and it's like, well, you just, you just lost. So, but good for you guys. Enjoy that. Yeah, I don't know. Cause I, like you're saying, I still enjoy a lot of these Houston guys.  Who's gonna walk away with the MVP? You know, if Houston, I think, who's got an argument? I think Springer, El Tuve, Bregman all could do it with one big game. I mean, if Garrett Cole comes out and he does something special, does he have an argument? I don't know. Yeah, we'll see. How about Zach Grinke? Yeah, it could be special, man. Zach Grinke could win his second game in game seven. So that, that's where it's at and that's where it's wild. And I think it's, it's so funny cause we make a point out of it in the MLB season. And I think this is the only thing, cause I know you were coming down on NFL fans, how it's easy to be an NFL fan. The part that sucks about being an NFL fan is after four games, your season could be out the window. You could play four solid games, lose at the end and your season's done. That sounds delightful. Baseball, you could do that and you could have a pretty nice week afterwards. You could come back, win the next three and you're moving on up. Yeah, band-aid instead of a slow, painful tear. We, or a slow, fun tear. Sounds like me in college. I would say this it's pretty sick that a sport we say like, Hey, baseball, one game. You can't let that get to you. And it comes down to one game and it's like, this is awesome. Yeah. 180 something games comes down to one. You could hit three line drives at, you know, the shortstop, second baseman and the third baseman and you're looked at as a bad guy. You went over three and someone break Zimmerman breaks his bat twice and bloops a couple in. So that's, that's the beauty of it.  That ends this show. Enjoy game seven. We'll be live tonight or tomorrow morning, whatever to recap everything that happened. Thanks guys.


Okay. Hi, I'm Robin Ginn. I'm the executive director of the OpenJS Foundation. I am here with Tiffany Lanuyen from Expedia, and we're going to talk to you about a really cool customer case study, which is how Expedia is using OpenJS Foundation technologies. So, hey Tiffany, why don't you tell us a little bit more about yourself. Hi, so I'm Tiffany. I've been working at Expedia for the past two years and working on their landing pages as well as building their testing pipelines and generally trying to make the developer experience their good and my free time. Then I'm also a mentor for Free Code Camp Montreal and I teach new people how to code and kind of reach their development goals. That's very cool. So for those few people maybe in the world who don't know about Expedia, just give us a little description about what, you know, what kind of company Expedia is. Sure. So Expedia or rather Expedia Group is a travel company that has, is a multi-billion dollar industry with millions of users from all over the world and booking properties and booking dates for their travels. Great. I know I use it all the time. So it's great to have you here.  Yeah, right now my engineering team is facing some pretty interesting problems. Essentially at Expedia for context, we have a lot of different brands and a lot of different pages, which a lot of apps end up serving. So that makes it so that we have a lot of duplication of code and issues of inconsistency throughout the user flow that we want to solve. So that's what my team is doing. We're trying to reduce that duplication, reduce the inconsistencies and make sure we're all aligned in our, in our design systems. Great. So then describe some of the solutions that you're building. Right now it's in order to kind of remove that duplication. Then we are building this library, which is kind of making business level components that can be reused throughout different clients that are tied to a GraphQL to data so that people can just use it and plug and play, for example, a property card or a header or or something that has, that's kind of attached to data. And that will, and that is also following accessibility norms, performance, SEO kind of best practices as well. And that's kind of what we're working on. That's great. I was going to ask you sort of what are some of the things that were really important from a developer point of view when you're, when you're building a solution. So you just mentioned a few. Are there any sort of other top level ones? I thought I, I think I heard you mentioned some in your Oskan talk. Yes. Yeah. So I was saying there's some accessibility concerns, you know, also concerns that we want to make sure that the bots are properly tracking and seeing through all the metadata that is on our page. And I think that was, oh yeah, and also performance, making sure that our pages are not too slow and that we're not kind of pushing big libraries that are maybe a little bit too hefty. Oh cool. So tell us how did you build your solution? What technologies did you end up using and how were those all put together? We ended up using TypeScript React node and GraphQL with React Apollo. So that's kind of the way that that library was built. We have internally a UI library for kind of these smaller pieces of the UI, so the fundamental pieces like H1s and A tags buttons. But we didn't have anything that would make a like a hotel card or something that is a little bit bigger, more business level and also tied to data, which is kind of reused everywhere. So those were the, those are the texts that we use and we try to make it kind of server-side driven as well. Great. And then tell us about your testing. Yeah, so yeah. Yeah, so our testing suite is pretty robust and it has been kind of ongoing for the past couple of years. We have an unit test and end-to-end test and an integration test. So that's using just testing library for React in our case. And then we have Cypress, which uses smoke under the hood for our end-to-end and our visual regression tests. And then we use BrowserStack for some smoke tests for cross-device and cross-browser testing as well. Oh, great. And then I heard that you were using the ESLint project. Yes. Tell us about that. So ESLint, as you know, is a pretty well-known lender at this point. And we used that at the step of the testing pipeline, which is the static checks, which catch so many bugs and so many kind of formatting in code smells right before we even push anything. And so that for us, it's really important because it's low cost, but it's also there to resolve a lot of issues for us before we even ship, right? So it's going to be catching things like if you forgot to initiate a variable before using it or assign it some value. So we're able to catch those errors before they ship as well as for new users that come into Expedia or people that are not really used to JavaScript type script and React yet. So it kind of gives them the kind of these rules and these don't do this and don't follow these types of standards and stuff, other standards. So that's kind of how we use it as well. So to save the time from our more experienced UI engineers from having to kind of teach them and train them through the pull request reviews. Oh, cool. So describe like a common scenario because I use Expedia all the time. So tell me like if something's not working, what are the sort of the common things that you see and then how do you fix that? Is it related to ESLint or just kind of a general problem? Either, whichever you know. Yeah, so for us, if we see on a page that there is an accessibility bug somewhere where this image doesn't have an alt tag or this anchor tag doesn't have, isn't connected to the proper buttons, then that usually would end up getting flagged to us by our product managers. And that ends up going into the queue of our technical product managers and going back to developers that then have to kind of figure out what this issue is. That usually at that point we would look at the testing to see what tests have been written that would, because we would have, we should have been testing that anyway. And then that kind of goes all back into fixing that bug. So we much prefer that these things which could have been caught by ESLint if we did have ES, which we do have now in place. So we can help us catch those types of accessibility bugs that are kind of surface level. And at that point we would have fixed it before even shipping in. Oh, great. Great. So a lot of, I mean, you catch a lot before it even reaches a general consumer. So that's, that's huge. Yeah. So I know you mentioned some other OpenJS Foundation projects you're using NodeJS, for example. How is Expedia using NodeJS? What is it? Expedia used to be more Java and JSP centric. And there was a push to kind of modernize these applications using Node and React and TypeScript. So now most of our applications, I'd say, that are serving web pages are using using Node. And it's been working very well. There's been a lot of training for kind of getting our Java developers more familiar with JavaScript. But Node in itself has been going very smoothly. And we use Node paired with Express for our apps, which is Express, of course, is another OpenJS project. And to server pages. And it's also part of our internal scaffolding and build tool. So scaffolding is being kind of setting up that repository and the build tool kind of very similar to create React app. We have our own that spins up these web apps. And we use, that scaffolding tool uses Node and Express and all those tools. Great. That's great to hear. You're even using, talk about sort of the globalization aspect. I think I heard you're using some of our other technologies. How do you globalize and scale your apps? Yeah, so as you know, our users are really from all over the world, and they are purchasing or they're renting properties for certain dates and travels. So having that invoice come out with really the proper currency, the proper date formats and all that is extremely, extremely important. And also, and I'm sure any developer would say dealing with dates and formatting and localization is a huge pain. And having globalized there and globalized within our internal build and scaffolding tool is super helpful and makes that really difficult complex piece of work really trivial for us to use. That's great. I'm sure the globalized maintainers will be happy to hear that. Absolutely. So how do you all measure what you're building? I mean, from a developer point of view, or maybe just your team, what kinds of things do you look at overall? In terms of metrics. How do you measure your success? We do it in a few ways. I think when I first joined, it kind of started out as conversion rates of how many people were based on certain experience, how many people were booking more properties based on if it was red or if it was blue. That's not really an experiment, but to show my point. And now we're taking an account a little bit more qualitative data of trying to see, well, maybe right now it's not as impactful, but in the long run, then this is going to improve the customer experience and provide customer value in different other ways as well. So I'm not a product manager, but it's that's kind of how I see it being looked at. Great. It sounds like you have a really nice integration with the product managers, your dev team, probably marketing folks for SEO. Yeah, we have our own SEO team and we have our product managers that kind of really let us know why something is winning or how it's doing and how we can improve it. And the developers are right part of that. That's pretty cool. Great. So let's see, what other questions do I have? One question I always like to ask developers when they're working is like, what would be just a great day for you? What's a great day when you come into work and you're like, this was a great day? A great day for me is when I don't have too many meetings and I can concentrate on doing one task. I'm at a point where most of what I do is helping others and kind of getting on meetings, pairing and figuring that out. And that's great, but sometimes I just want to be able to delve into a problem and spend a few days that are even consecutive three hours of solving it. And then being able to push it, merge it in at the end, having all the tests pass. That's a great day. That's great. Well, you've been sharing your expertise with others as well, public speaking. I know you spoke at OpenJS World in Montreal. Yeah, and the OSCon Super Stream, those are my first two speaker experiences. Hopefully I'll do more. That's great. And I know we have your slides on our website from the Montreal event for people who want to do a deep dive on some of the solutions. Great. So is there anything I missed that you think would be important to share for developers working in your space? Well, I think that UI testing in general is pretty new and there's a lot of new modern tools that can make things a lot better. Before and you had to kind of always use these Selenium-based or rather web driver-based tools and it was always kind of flaky and annoying and people would have to... People, even at Expedia, we have some repos that still kind of use these and it's always a pain to have to refactor and make any new changes as people dread that testing pipeline. I think it's important, even though it can be a little bit daunting to look into these tools and to try to build it in a user-centric way, which is not something that I think a lot of people would normally think about. But it helps so much and it helps to develop our experience and move so fast. That's very cool. And that user-centric testing is really what you've been really sharing your knowledge. So we really appreciate you sharing your knowledge with us, the OpenJS Foundation and all of our communities and really appreciate Expedia as a great case study for our technologies. Of course. Thanks for having us.


You want to take us to listen to David David a different David. Yeah, this is a good question Um, I believe you covered this before but I'm looking for a way to travel with the least amount of dongles cables Etc. I have a MacBook Air and iPad Apple Watch and iPhone. Do you have a preferred solution? You know, you're gonna have to do this on a case-by-case basis Unless all your peripherals are USB-C, but I highly doubt that Sure So you only need some sort of a dongle or dock or whatever you want to call it So, you know make a summary of all the things that you have and all the connectors For good, well, I just traveled and anchor had provided a couple of docs to both me and you I think and The one that I brought with me was exactly what I needed is that it had An ethernet port in case there was an ethernet port to plug into versus Wi-Fi and This hotel actually did have an ethernet cable Dave. I don't know if it was live, but I'm probably not But yeah, I brought an anchor one that had Ethernet port and two USB-A ports So you're talking about a a dongle that connects to your computer to give your computer connectivity to your devices Or to the devices in the hotel. Yeah. Yes, great. So I found the anchor 543 USB-C hub, which I think is probably the current version of of you know, what you're talking about here And I'll put that in the show notes just to just to get us there. So Because it's a USB-C hub it's got some USB-C ports on it actually I don't this one doesn't have any USB a Ports or maybe it does. Oh No, it does. Sorry. Yeah, it's got actually this one's great. It's got power delivery input Power delivery output to your computer a USB-C data port to USB a ports HDMI and ethernet. So Yeah, that that would be a good one That I assume that's similar to what the one you have. Yeah Yeah, and they have them. Well, they have a more button, but I Page while we're discussing things because that's just rude Here's the one thing I found on my travels Dave though USB a Everybody offer every any place where I had the potential to charge the only thing that was available was USB a So that's either on the plane, which is nice The planes that I run actually also had a 120 volt which that's handy Yep And then the airports have charging stations and the hotel had charging stations, but they're all USB a so That's why that was important to me. Yeah. Yeah, and that makes sense because USB-C could be a power delivery scenario and you don't want like That's not gonna work in It for the masses, right? So USB a Simple five volts everything just works you have your USB a cable to whatever you need to charge It's not gonna charge your laptop Whereas if you had a USB-C cable that was only five volts or USB-C port that you could plug your laptop in You wouldn't get enough juice out of it, right? So I think it's smart that they stay with USB a for you know for sort of the ubiquitous power ports that are in Hotel rooms and airplanes and all of that stuff. Yeah. Yeah, of course the other annoyance is that the Is that the phone still has lightning? So Yeah, so bring it an a to lightning cable and you're good to go, right? I Also highly recommend Some and we talked about it on the show. I don't know about six months ago Put some a to see adapters in your travel case.


Welcome to the Network Engineering video blog. I am your host Michael Crane. In today's video, we are going to use Wireshark to look at a SIP call transfer using the refer method. The call flow will be A call C, then B calls A, followed by A transferring B to C. We will be using our SIP test bed we built in video number 65 for this testing. So let's get started. Okay, so it's going to be a call transfer test. Basically what we've got is we're going to have A is going to call C, right, and then B is going to call A, and then A is going to put the phone C on hold. He's going to answer the call from B, and at that point A is going to transfer B to C. All right, and I hope that makes sense. Let's give it a shot. Okay, so first A is going to call C. Okay, now B, let me down a little bit. Now B is going to call A. All right, you can see line two blinking there for A. So I'm going to, A is going to put phone C on hold. So I'm going to put him on hold. I'm going to answer line two. Yeah, it's hard to do this voice path test. It's easier just to pick the phones up and say hello, hello. But yeah, that wouldn't work too good with the video. Okay, that looks okay. Okay, so these guys are in two-way comm, and we've got phone C on hold. All right, so now what I'm going to do is I want to transfer basically line two to line one, or basically C to, or B to C. And after we do that, A is going to drop off. So I do this, I'm going to hit the transfer button. And at this point, usually a dial a phone number, but since we're doing direct dial, I can't do that. So luckily, the GrantStreams allows you to just select the line. So I'm just going to select line one, which is phone C. And as you can see, phone A is disconnected. There's no longer a call going. And you can see that B and C are talking. And you can verify. Yep, we've got voice path going both directions. So there you have it. Okay, that's a call transfer. All right, so I guess first we'll just take a look at the call flow here real quick.  And since this is a transfer, we're going to have two different calls. One is a calling C and the second one is B calling A. All right. And I'm just going to highlight them both so we can look at them together. I think it'll make more sense than looking at them one at a time, right? So I'm going to highlight them both, click on flow sequence. All right, let's refresh our memories with what the test bed looks like. All right, so dot 44 is phone A right here. Dot 46 is phone C. And dot 45 is phone B. So it's good that we looked at this. So you know, the middle one here instead of being B is going to be C. All right. So first we have the invite. So A is calling C. And I'm not going to really go over the messaging on a regular SIP call. I've done a video on that. And also I've done a video on putting a phone on hold. I'm not going to go deep into that. We're mainly interested in the transfer part of this today. But we'll go ahead and look at this here real quick. So we've got, so this is A calling C. There's the invite and it gets 100 trying from C, gets a 180 ringing from C. And at this point, we should have a dialogue up or our dialogue ID, I should say.  And they agreed upon G711 mu law and phone A acts back. Acts the 200 okay. And we have two way media. That's what these guys are. All right. So we've got basically the A called C phone call up, right, or session up. And that's just your standard SIP call that we've looked at in previous videos. All right. Well, this is different. So, so now we're going to have this is the invite coming from B. And he is calling A. And of course, it'll be coming in on line two. So we get the invite from B. We get a 100 trying from phone A 180 ringing from phone A. And so now the phone is ringing and alerts the user. So the user says, Oh, okay, I've got another call coming in on line two. So he says, the phone C, let me put you on hold. And that's what this invite is. That's that's phone A putting phone C on hold. Here's the 200 okay back from phone C. And the act back from phone A. Okay, so now line one is on hold, line two is ringing. So he clicks on line two, these are clicks on line two, and, and that generates a 200 okay from phone A to phone B. Then phone B sends a an act to the 200 okay. And now we've got two way media. Okay, so the call is up that that session is up between phone A and phone C. I'm sorry, phone phone B and phone C is still on hold. All right. So now what we want to do is we want to transfer phone C to phone B. Right. So here's this is that this is the invite to do that. And let's go take a look at that invite. So when I hit the transfer button, phone A sends an invite to phone B, right. And if we look down into the in the SDP, you can see he's he's putting him on hold basically, right. So he's basically putting phone B on hold. And what's interesting about is it says this in dialogue. And I mean, I noticed in when we're doing the other hold, when we did last video on call hold, and I never saw this in dialogue. I'm not exactly sure why it all of a sudden decided to mark it as in dialogue. It didn't do the other one. We could look at it real quick if you want. And this is where this is where this call flow comes in handy. If we just try to scroll up here and figure out which invite is what, there's three of them right before we even get to it. And we could do it. I mean, it's not that hard with this simple of a call flow, but it's easier just to come down here and say, okay, well, here's where B is calling a and this is where we put C on hold. So you just highlight this invite right here. And what's nice is it automatically highlights it on the trace. So we can just move that off the screen, come down to this invite. And this is where we put them on hold. You can see a ascending C, the invite ascend only, right? That's a 200 okay back should be received only up from C. But you notice he didn't put in dialogue there. I don't know why. Maybe someone that knows more about wire shark than me can comment. But anyway, let's go back to our call flow because we're looking at call transfer. And let's see, where were we? We Okay, put on hold. Okay, this is so now the call the session between A and C. I'm sorry, A and B. C is on hold. Okay, we hit the transfer button. He puts B on hold. Okay, here's a 200 coming back and act for putting B on hold. And as soon as I select that line, where I say, so I'm talking to me, I select line one for phone C, do this, I'm going to hit the transfer button. And at this point, usually a dial a phone number. But since we're doing direct dial, I can't do that. So luckily, the grand state streams allows you to just select the line. So I'm just going to select line one, which is phone C. He shoots this refer out. Now this is this is the real transfer right here. Okay, is this refer and let's go look at that guy. Okay, we've got okay, it's coming via a okay from phone a okay that makes sense to phone C. Okay, here it is. Here's the ears what we're looking for. So we're going to refer to dot 45, which is phone B port 56 he replaces this call ID. Okay, from tag, here's his from tag, here's his to tag. So it's a it's looking at the whole dialogue, right? And it's referred by, well, there's a head scratcher. Wow, I don't know where that IP address came from. That's, that's pretty damn funny there. It must be some something bogus in in one of the phone configs. That's that's populating that because dot 40, what is that? Let's pull up our drawing. There's nothing up here with dot 40. I'll have to go look at that. Okay, so I went ahead and pulled up the the config for phone a you can see his IP address is dot 44, which is correct. And then line one or count one, you can see that the dot 40 is actually something I plugged in there for the SIP server. And the SIP server does not exist. Well, not yet anyway. And I do plan on creating a SIP server with an IP address of dot 40 if you remember from a long time ago on a video blog, we did. But as you can see, that counts not even active. So I guess the the SIP phone decided, well, I need to plug something in that field. So I'm just going to plug this dot 40 in. So anyway, that's where that that dot 40 came from. And yeah, so in this referred by I'm surprised I didn't use dot 44. I'd have to go on the spec, but I I'm surprised I just didn't use dot 44. Anyway, yeah, we're going to be replacing this dialogue for that's going to phone A to and it's going to be replaced by a dialogue between B and C instead of A and C. Okay. And one of the things I was looking at was, if you notice in our trace right here, you're going to see something that you see that accepted right here. And this is coming from phone B. I'm sorry, phone C is, you know, given a 202 accepted. And then after this 202 accepted, we see this notify coming back. And what that is, is that's, and we can look at it real quick, but it's a, a SIP fragment. And he's kind of given us, he's giving phone A, or phone C is telling phone A, what's going on with the call between the call that we transferred between B and C. All right. So phone C is updating phone A about what's going on between B and C. Does that make sense? And what he's telling us is a SIP frag and he's received a 100 trying from phone B. Now, if you notice from our trace here, we don't see that right here. And that's because I didn't have the port marrying turned on for phone B or phone C either one would would work because we're missing the dialogue between phone B and phone C, because I only had the, the port marrying turned on for phone A. So we could see everything communicating with A, but not if A wasn't in the conversation, he wasn't getting the trace. So I went ahead and made another call, exact same call. This time I turned on port marrying for phone C, I believe. You see now he's, yeah, it was for phone C because you can see right here. So we'll just highlight these guys and look at the flow sequence. And now I'll see we have another color. So here's a refer we're looking at. Here's a 202 accepted. And here's a notify. And you can see it looks like it's a little, a little out of sync. Not exactly sure why. But if you look at this is the invite from phone C to phone B. All right, let's go take a look at them real quick. So here's that invite message header. Okay, so from phone C to phone 45 is B, you can see there's not a tag ID right here. So they haven't established a dialogue yet. Okay, contact phone C. And here's the replaces header. This is telling phone B that this is a transfer. Okay. And it's replacing this dialogue, right? It's not the dialogue that was in that was in that refer to in that refer header that refer sent message. This is the dialogue from the phone call from B to a. Okay, so let's go look at that real quick. So here's his call ID a 18 is the last three digits and the tag is 592 and 527. So let's go up here. See, even this, this kind of simple trace can get pretty complicated. So dot 45 is is B. Here's where he called a. And let's go down to the 200. Okay, here's the 200. Okay, for it, let's go look at his dialogue ID, we got, yeah, so here you go a 18 d 09. Oh, sorry, that's, that's transaction ID 527 and 592 replacing down here. And this replaces header. See 527 592 a 18. So this is the dialogue we're replacing with this new invite that we received from C, right? Is that clear as mud so far? Anyway, he sends a 100 trying back. And then he says, but I don't need this, this old call anymore to phone a. So he sends a by the phone a it's probably easier. Look, let's look at this trace right here. Okay, so here's a refer accepted, notify and 200. Okay. And this notify where it said trying. I believe this is when it's in a sip frag like this is usually from it'd be like this trying right here. But it doesn't look like it's really synced up. And I'm starting to think maybe it just got a 100 trying from phone C or this traces out of whack. And I'm not going to really look get into it or dig into it a little more other ones look like. So here's a ringing. And here's probably a notify for the ringing and stuff. So I'm not sure if C just didn't generate that 100 trying just to send you know, an update to phone a. But anywhere is a 200. Okay. Okay. So here's the the invite from C to B with the replaces. So it's replacing the call from from a to C, and it gets a 100 trying back from phone B. And at this point, phone B says, well, I don't need that this call up here anymore. So I'm just going to disconnect it. And then he sends, okay, I'm doing a ringing sends a ringing to phone C. Phone A is sending a 200 okay back to this buy right here. And we can go look at that real quick. If you're wondering how to determine that. This is where the sequence numbers come in. So there's a buy. And this is what like I was saying where the sequence comes in. So it's a sequence number of 15135 by and here's that ringing I was telling you about right here. And here's a two okay. And 200 okay, and you can see so it's forced the sequence by 15135. So that's how you kind of know that by and this 200 okay are matched up. And so phone C has received a 180 ringing from from B. And now he's going to notify phone C is going to notify phone A just to kind of keep them in the loop that he got a ring. So we'll go look at this real quick. And there it is right there in a sip fragment. He's saying, yep, I got a ringing phone A says, okay, very good. And then phone B sends a 200 okay for the, you know, to bring the the call up or the session. And phone C says, tell us phone a okay, I've gotten a 200 okay. So now the call is up phone C acts the 200 okay. For this guy right here is he got 200 okay, he acts it, he sent the in between that time he sent the notify phone a sends a 200 okay for that notify that he received right here. Okay, now these guys have their media going. So the session is up and now that phone a knows that this call was transferred. Okay, he just sends a goodbye and disconnects the phone and phone C says yep, see you okay. All right. Don't forget you can support the network engineering video blog by donation using a credit card and PayPal or by purchasing products at the muxall store details and links are in the description under this video. Well, that's it for this video. If you liked the video, give it a big thumbs up. That helps and hit the subscribe button. That really helps. If you have any questions or comments, post them in the comments under this video. Thanks for watching and I'll see you next time.


Zdaj imam tudi izgleda, tudi izgleda z Angelo Montanari in Laura Bozzelli, z Universtvim Vudine in z Universtvim Naplesem. Fokus v pippa je na temporalne planiče, ali vzgleda, da ne izgleda vzgleda vzgleda, če je vzgleda na akciju, če je vzgleda na timeline. zelo zelo vzoutenite vzoutenite vzouti, vzoutenite vzouti, in zelo vzoutenite, in zelo vzouti. Tudi da res nekako še krativno je proč, da poživimo začniti. Tudi je to početnit, da je zelo cestil od presnega začniti, in zelo zelo zelo, da je zelo vzouto na vzouti, na zelo vzouti na zelo vzouti, The temporal domain setting. In the discrete temporal domain setting, we have the problem, the decision problem. If there is a set of a timeline which satisfies all the constraints given in the specification, it is in X-piece phase. It can be solved in X-piece phase. In the case of a dense temporal domain, which is the domain where we are focusing, Sveč je vzgleda, da je izgleda nekaj problem. Zato nekaj, da je izgleda z다는i, semantik, semantik, semantik začel.  Jed Perhaps it proved it is reasonable from computational point of view since it is, we have proved it a problem is in p-space. Essentially by reduction to time of the automata so complexity is the same as reference for formalism for dense time domains. And we believe it is expressive for practical point of view. In druga kontribušnja je izgleda in izgleda in izgleda, kaj smo vzalivali, da vzalivamo konverso, da vzalivamo konverso z definiciju, za predstavljenju, za vzalivanje za vzalivanje vzalivanje vzalivanje vzalivanje vzalivanje vzalivanje vzalivanje vzalivanje vzalivanje. Vzalivamo konverso z vzalivanjem, da vzalivamo konverso vzalivanje. V tako počusti bomo zelo na prejmojnjo vsega, nekaj, da se priče vsega vržitega. In bomo počusti nekaj vsega, najbolj vsega, ki je vsega zelo, nekaj se vsega, nekaj se priče, nekaj se priče, nekaj se priče, nekaj se priče. In druga segnonizacija je, da when the processor tries to read the first value, it is reading, then this trial has two possible effects. The reading can be unsuccessful, so we have the first disjunct, and then the state remains unchanged, read zero, or the reading attempt is successful, and then the next state is really one, but the condition for a successful read is that the reading token covers a ready state for the sensor. The same, we have a goal, which requires that finally we have two reads and a successful transmission. So we can have the formal definition of the problem. TP domain is a pair where we have a set of variables, a set of rules, and the problem is to answer the question whether there is a multi-time line satisfying all the required constraint or the rule, trigger and trigger as a rule. Unfortunately, the problem in the general setting of this domain is that it has been proved to be undecidable, so we have to consider restriction to gain the desedability of the problem. Here we can have a picture of the result for the problem, for the restriction of the problem. We can find in the, which are of previous results, the starting results for the work I am presenting. The restriction, which have been considered, are the following. First of all, we have considered a semantic restriction, namely called future semantics. In the future semantics, when having fixed a trigger, an atom for trigger, one can choose for the existential part a token in the future, cannot choose a token in the past. Then we have a syntactic restriction, which is called simple rules. It means that the same existential token cannot occur more than once in an existential statement. Then we have a restriction, we have considered a restriction on intervals. Singular intervals are intervals, which are points, essentially, and then points are avoided in the expression of rules. And then we have another restriction on intervals. In this class of intervals, we have intervals, which are either unbounded, or if they are bounded, they start from the initial point, they start from zero. This is the picture in the case of unrestricted semantics. We know that the problem is indecidable. It is indecidable also in the future semantic. So we have to add a restriction on rules. And in the case of future semantic and simple trigger rules, we have a decidable problem, but the complexity is very high, since it is non-primitive and recursive. But if you consider simple trigger rules and don't singular intervals, the problem is easier. The complexity is proven to be X-space and X-space complete. And in the case of the more restricted set of intervals, the problem is in P-spains. There is also another interesting result. If you consider only trigger-less rules, the problem is NP-complete. But of course trigger rules are not enough to express meaningful specifications. So one cannot consider this formula with this very strong restriction. Now we have considered another alternative semantic, which do not require any syntactic restriction on the rule format. And the semantics is based on this idea. That when one issue a trigger, each trigger requires something which requires a response in a science from another token. And the response has to happen as soon as possible. It has been a prompt response. So in this case, when we ask, we fix this trigger, this trigger for this token, we can satisfy the requirement both choosing for B and C, both choosing this occurrence or this occurrence of the token. In the prompt semantics in a sense, we cannot choose the second instance, but we have to choose the first one. We are obliged to choose the first one. We have the idea that in the existential part the chosen token must be as much as the closest token. But what does it mean closest? We have to fix precisely the idea of closest token and fix the definition of closest token. We have two alternatives. We have investigated two alternatives. The first one is the strong minimal semantics. It leads to the strong minimal semantics. The idea is that when we have to choose a token, we have to choose the token which minimizes the distance, whose starting point minimizes the distance from the starting point of the trigger. This simple definition leads to a very powerful setting. This is shown in this example. If we have a simple timeline with only one value for the state, C, and then we have a swap for A and B in the previous timeline, what it is required, it is very simple, that for each occurrence of A of B, there must be both a C preceding B and another C following B. But this is possible only if the distance in between the starting point of the first occurrence from the token and the distance from the following token from the beginning is the same. Only in this case we can satisfy this constraint. This means that the only solution for this specification is this solution where A and B have the same duration, are constrained to have the same duration, and C is the sum of the duration of A of B. Namely, it is a duration which is two times the duration of B. This simple trick allows to encode counters and to prove that there is a reduction of the halting problem of Minsky to counters machine to the problem, to the tp problem with the strong minimal semantics. This is not a good solution for what we are asking for. We have considered another variant called minimal weak semantics, where we have distinguished the future and the past, requiring that simply when you want to choose a token in the future, one has to choose a token in such a way that there is no token of the same value in between the trigger and the chosen token. In this case we have to choose that if this one is the token and we have a wandering for B, we cannot choose this instance of B. We have to choose this one and the same for C. In this case a similar rule for the past. We have a similar constraint for the past. In this case we have the good news since the problem with this kind of semantics can be shown to be decidable and in particular the problem is it has been proved to be p-space complete. The complete p-space, the upper bound of the problem has been proved from a reduction from the tp problem to time at automata, which exploit a variant of extended evident clock automata, which has been providing this work. Instead the lower bound it has been proved by a technical machinery, which exploit, namely a reduction from a domino tiling problem with linear length of roads into our problem. What is interesting probably is having an idea of the extension of evident clock automata, evident clock automata are a robust fragment of a time automata, which is well known. Robustness depends even on the fact that the values of clocks are fixed by the input and not by the behavior of the automaton. In particular for each symbol of the alphabet we have a past clock and a predicting clock. We have reached this event clock with diagonal constraints. Diagonal constraints are of this form. We have an essential difference of clocks of the same polarity, namely either they are predicting or they are past, not mixed combinations and sums of constraints for tokens of the same, of different polarity. If we remove this constraint on polarity we have another extension which is called ekI++. The properties are that the extension is proper since there is an example of an automaton of a language which cannot be recognized by an event clock automata. And they have the same closure properties. And there is, of course, which is the basic machinery to prove the result. One can take an extended event clock automaton and translate it to a time automaton in exponential time. This automaton has a linear number of clocks and an exponential number of states as it happens for the standard ek. And the nice result is also the curiosity result is also that in the case of ekI++ this conversion cannot be done since the emptiness problem for this class of automata is undecidable. So, we have followed, to prove the main result we have followed these steps. We have encoded, of course, multi-time lines into time awards. We have encoded trigger rules by ekI++. We have encoded trigger rules by standard time automaton and then we have solved the problem in a standard way using the standard machinery for time automaton. And this is the formulation of the main theorem with precise complexity of the states and the clocks. So, in this work we have proposed an alternative semantics for time line, which does not use a restriction of, syntactical restriction of rules and which is meaningful from the possibility of having the specification, of reasonable specification. We have provided an extension of even the clock automaton to extension, one is interesting, the other is indecidable. And as a future work you want to face the problem of model checking using timelines as a basic way to specify systems so we have to have an alternative to point-based definition by means of LTS by label transition system and instead of having timelines as the semantics to be checked. And using an interval model logic like, for instance, Alper and Schoen logic we have investigated in other context which performing a meaningful use of an interval point logic instead of a point-based model logic like LTIL or LCTL and so on. So, that's all. And as you have extended this even clock automaton in CA plus, in CA plus plus, right? Yeah.  Yes, it is true, I have no detail, but it is true. But it is true both for both the extensions, for both the extensions. But what is not true for the most powerful extension is the conversion to time of automaton and they are, in general, the emptiness problem isn't decidable. Secondly, yeah, I...  Expressively, is there any relationship? We have... We have a user... It is not... We have extended even the clock automaton since the update of clocks is very, very similar to the idea of promptness, of promptness of the semantic. So it was a natural formalism to have a translation from the setting towards time of automaton. We have... Probably we have investigated model... We have used... We have tried a model checking approach, which uses the metric interval temporal logic to express properties of timelines, using this fragment. And they exploit the same good property that the meter can be encoded by time of automaton. So you can have the solution of model problems, of model checking problem using intersection of time of automaton. So it is the natural logic to speak about this kind of... I do not know if we can do the same with the new semantics. Since we have this minimality constraint, we have to, in a sense, to take care of. Okay? Yeah. What are the parameters synthesis? In some sense? Rules can have parameters. And are there... No, there are no parameters. There is an extendable code. If you want to make me better, I will send you to investigate.


The Suicide Squad Movie Review. Hey, what's up guys? It's Josh here. Today I wanted to do a little movie review on the Suicide Squad from 2021, not to be confused with just Suicide Squad, which I think came out in like 2016. The original got such poor ratings and everybody seemed to universally dislike it kind of. So I really just took a hard pass from that movie. This movie is about criminals who are in jail, like famous criminals from I think the DC universe.  That's kind of like the initial synopsis with this movie. But I felt like they expected you to see the first movie because they barely even talk about anything like that at all. There's very little story or things happening. It's more just kind of like random action kind of scenes. Let's jump into the pros of this movie. The pros is that I found it to be pretty blunt. I felt like every character was really going for it. There was nothing held back. I actually felt like they were even more blunt than I expected them to be, which actually like I don't really like movies where there's almost like this PG like aura around everything or where you could feel people are kind of holding back. I didn't get that in this movie. They had some inventive kills. It is pretty aggressive and there are a couple like carnage candy style moments here. I really liked that it was R rated, you know, it just makes things just so much more enjoyable. This movie is kind of like a buffet of actors, abilities, colors. You know, that's what I kind of felt like with the whole movie. You're just you have all this on the screen and not very much is specifically happening. There's not that much of a good story. But if you want really flashy explosions and colors and heights here, actors, that's pretty much what's going on the whole movie. It's very colorful. It's very it's just a kind of like a buffet of a bunch of different things to look at. But anyways, guys, that's been my pros of Suicide Squad. Let's jump into the cons of this movie. The cons is that I really wasn't invested in just about anything in this movie. I don't really need movies to have a specific story, but I just kind of felt like I don't know why we're doing what we're doing. That's kind of the main feeling I got most of this movie.  But there's just so little, you know, reasoning behind why anything gets done. It just feels like people are just randomly doing things for two hours. I just really wasn't invested in almost anything going on. There was no interesting climax. There was no I just really wasn't, you know, there was almost no story to me and there was a story like I could tell you what their story was supposed to be. But I just didn't feel in, you know, in any story with this movie. Suicide Squad, they're almost kind of like losers except for the main black character, which actually was probably the only character that I did like. But all the other characters in here are just kind of like losers.  So it's kind of hard to get in involved with what they're doing because you just kind of feel like, oh man, these guys are just losers. There's nothing admirable about any of them. There's nothing I would want to copy about any of them except for like getting like the main character. So they have like a boss in this movie. And I guess it's like the starfish boss. And I guess this was like a real boss in the comics. So I do appreciate that. But it was just kind of like, what am I watching? Like there's a big killer starfish. For me, I just wasn't on board. They have a lot of quick meaningless deaths in this movie. I actually don't mind quick meaningless deaths or quick deaths because it kind of gives it something unexpected and a little jarring kind of like wakes you up a little bit. But there's so many deaths in this movie that were just kind of like pointless. Like it'd have been nice if there was a reason behind all this happening. Not just, oh, uh-huh, he died. He died like that. Uh-huh. That's kind of like what I felt in this movie. This was just my personal opinion. I think a lot of people liked this movie surprisingly. If you like it, I would be very interested to see what you liked about it. Maybe I could kind of go in with a different mindset. I expected some kind of story here, some sort of story arc for me personally. And I didn't feel anything. If I were to say own stream or pass, I would say for me personally, pass because there was just really nothing for me in this movie. There was really nothing that I really too much enjoyed about this movie. I don't know why it was rated so highly. And I almost want to watch the first Suicide Squad, which was so hated because I'm like, you know, maybe I'm the opposite. Maybe I like the first one and I don't like this one. I'm not too sure because everyone seemed to not like that one, but they like this one. So anyways, guys, that's been my review of Suicide Squad. I'm going to have to give it a hard pass. What do you think? Should we use some sure people stream it? Should people own it? Is it a great movie? Is it a bad movie? I'd be very interested to see down below. We're on the road of 50,000 subscribers and I could not do it without any of your guys' help. You guys are the best. I'm having a great day out here. Hopefully having a great day at home. See you all in the next video. Peace.