Privileged to be part of this symposium today, so my thanks to Eric and Rudy and the LC folks for the opportunity to participate. Now LC I think probably is familiar to everybody, ethical, legal, social implications. This has been my interface with the genome project initially and institute subsequently and as folks may know, one of the most innovative aspects of the genome project was the decision early on to set aside 5% of the budget for research in this domain. This was important for Congress at the inception of the initiative and continues from my perspective to be a highly important aspect of this whole enterprise. I personally would like to see this to be modeled for other NIH institutes but probably a topic for another day and an era of more flush budgets perhaps. So I'm going to talk today about newborn screening. This has been the focus of my research in recent years. I'm not going to talk so much about our research but talk a little bit more about the public policy issues and how it may be that this technology that's emerging might be applied in this particular context. So we've talked already about the enormous progress over the last 10 years or so and it's been interesting to see the evolution in the discussion of ethical, legal and social issues over that period of time. I think fair to say a lot of discussion early on was fairly speculative and fairly high level about designer babies and those sorts of issues. Much more recently I think we've gotten down into the weeds with the investigators as technologies emerge to say, okay, let's think about this specific type of testing and how it might apply to different sorts of clinical contexts. So we're moving into a much more translational era. So here's my focus. Given the power of this technology to conduct whole genome sequencing, whole exome sequencing, how can this technology be best used to benefit children? Might this technology have an application in newborn screening as the specific focus here? A little bit different way of saying this is if full genome sequencing is the new hammer, does newborn screening look like a nail? So let me talk a little bit about these programs that may not be particularly familiar to everybody here. Every baby essentially or almost every baby in the country is subject to newborn screening. So four million babies per year. All states, districts, certainly all developed countries around the world are engaged in newborn screening. So this has become a popular and effective mode of approaching disease treatment and prevention. Single largest application of genetic testing. So obviously that invites the question of how might we use these new technologies in this particular context. Now interesting, this is the 50th anniversary of newborn screenings in the United States. Massachusetts started their mandatory program back in 1963. Big celebrations going on around the country this year about newborn screening to celebrate the success of these programs. Estimates vary, but probably somewhere around 1,200 children, affected children identified on a yearly basis through newborn screening. So the key here is early identification. So these kids, for the most part, will come to clinical attention at some point. The point is to detect them shortly after birth in order to intervene either through preventive or treatment mechanisms that would reduce the morbidity and sometimes mortality for these particular conditions. What we've seen over the last 15 years and particularly over the last five, six, seven years is an enormous increase in the number of conditions that are being targeted. So 10 years ago, all but four states were screening for only six conditions. Utah at that point was only screening for two. 2013, all states screened for more than 30 conditions. And I'll talk a little bit more about why it is that we've seen this transition in recent years. And it's to a significant extent a technology-driven change, more so than a change in the basic philosophy of the programs. So here's how the system works. Blood collector from heel sticks in newborns, preferably after 12 hours of age because you want certain metabolites to build up in the baby's system based on being ex-utero rather than in utero. You want to do it before six days of age because some of these conditions, and Galactosemia being a good example, can lead to rapid decline and sometimes death in these infants. So you have to get in there quickly. You've got to get the results back quickly. Generally sent to state labs, some commercial labs involved in this, but for most part a state lab enterprise. And results return to the hospital and the physician of record for the baby. And the attempt is to try to get these results back within two weeks for the reasons that I mentioned. If the program is not highly efficient with this sort of throughput, then your risk baby is dying before that information can be brought back to bear on their clinical care. Now states report anywhere between about 98-99% uptake in this system. So enormously effective and efficient in that regard. The cost, again, varies by state and of course these are state-based programs, so hallmark is variability. But generally in the ballpark about 80 to 110 dollars, which is generally in most states charged to families. Now actually that's the charge typically that's to the hospital. The hospital will then turn around, often charge, upcharge to the family. So the charge to the family is actually greater, but that's bundled within the care bill that folks get after they've had a new baby. So you can see that the cost is remarkably low for the size of the test and the complexity of the programs that we're talking about. Now here's a fundamental issue that we'll come back to later in the talk. All states now, except Wyoming and the District of Columbia, have a mandatory newborn screening program, state mandated. So parental permission is not necessary and this was a hallmark of the program from very early on and part of the aspect of moving to a state-based foundation for the programs. There had been debate. Academy of Pediatrics was nervous about these programs back in the early 60s when they first started, was felt we didn't know enough about diseases, but advocacy organizations were effective in moving the testing into the state environment. And the perception was that the benefits of the baby were substantial enough, particularly with the first condition PKU, to warrant a state mandate for testing. Now most states, 43, do permit parents to opt out for either religious or philosophical reasons. There are no religions that have anything specific to say about newborn screening. So Utah, for example, has a religious exemption but our state is unclear about how anybody would actually claim such an exemption based on a religious tradition. Of course what happens in the real world is parents may refuse, they may give a say it's contrary to our personal beliefs and those are generally respected. Our state at least has not gone to the mat with anybody to say demonstrate that you're part of a religious tradition that has newborn screening as an element. But a central aspect of this is that the ability to opt out is not effectively communicated to parents. And this is a background fundamental problem with the larger system. The level of education of parents is typically low. And we found this certainly with our studies with population groups across the country. Folks may be aware that a heel stuck was done, the baby will come back with a band-aid on the heel, they'll know something was done. But as we talk with families about the fact that babies had 30 different tests, they're stunned. They have no idea of the extent of these programs. So a brochure goes into the bag along with lots of other stuff when you go into the hospital to deliver a baby, folks may get to read that days, weeks later or perhaps typically not. And so the ability to actually opt out is not effectively communicated to folks leading to a high level of support, tacit sport at least for the programs, 98 to 99% uptake. So what would whole genome or exome sequencing look like in this context? What would be the purpose of using this technology? And I've outlined at least a couple potential choices here. Folks here may be able to think be more creative about possible applications here, but one would be primary screening tool for all newborns. Is that what we're talking about here is potentially implementing this technology within the existing state-based program infrastructure as a new way of approaching these sorts of applications? Or we could have primary screening tools, a commercial supplement to existing state programs. Parents could choose as they have the ability to do this as a supplement. And there have been a supplemental commercial newborn screening approaches available for quite a few years and you hear stories of that being a shower gift for a pregnant woman as an expanded newborn screening panel. So here I think would be a distinction that came out of a conference here at the NIH from a couple years ago now. The difference between newborn screening, which we typically think of as a state program versus screening of newborns, which would be presumably outside the existing policy structure that we've been talking about. Or this technology could be used as secondary testing of affected infants. And as you'll see with my comments, this is where I think the biggest bang for the buck is. Identify genetic variants that impact treatment or prognosis in affected children. These conditions are not well characterized. There's quite a bit of variability. Much more needs to be known about the genetic underpinnings of those that are genetic. And this may be a powerful line of research to better understand these kids.  And the answer is yes. It's challenging but certainly feasible. But note that the throughput issue here is important. Eric talked a little bit earlier about and we've come to an era in which whole genome sequencing can be done in two or three days. Here I think through what the implications would be for a state-based program, and I've illustrated here numbers for two of our larger states in the country, 700 births a day, 365 days a year. California 1500 births a day, 365 days a year. So we need to think through the challenges of how this technology could be developed to the point that that level of throughput would be remotely feasible. Here's some of the ethical challenges, though, and I've got a couple slides about challenges that these developments pose for us. Multiplex platforms offer rapid expansion programs beyond the evidence-based supporting efficacy. It's a little bit of a complicated sentence. But tandem mass spectroscopy was the key technical advance that enabled a rapid expansion within the last 10 years of the newborn screening panel. And the point is what you may be looking for, one to five conditions out of mass spectroscopy, which you get results on many more. What do you do then with those results? And tandem mass is a multiplex platform. I would say whole genome sequencing is a multiplex platform. As the American College of Medical Genetics, with their enormously influential report in 2006, advocating for a uniform panel, but advocating what for many of us became a surprisingly large number of conditions. Europe typically tests for half a dozen or so conditions, or at least many countries in Europe do. I think many of us were anticipating that the evidence review process that the ACMG was undertaking would come back with a similar sort of number. Say we've got solid evidence that half a dozen conditions, or eight or maybe 10, would justify inclusion on the panel. Well they came back advocating 29 conditions and 29 conditions and 25 secondary conditions. Now we have limited data on many of these conditions, and there's wide variability in how these are treated across the clinical community. So part of this was an assumption within the ACMG process that if you have the data you have an ethical obligation to disclose it. If there's something that you as a clinician or the clinical community thinks you can do for these babies, then despite the absence of carefully controlled child to demonstrate those benefits, there's an ethical obligation to disclose. So I think this is exactly the debate we're currently having now in the sequencing domain to say once those results emerge out of your analytic process, what's your obligation to disclose those to families? And I think the fact that you're generating those through this technology offers the opportunity to significantly expand the number of things you're targeting. If indeed your conclusion is you have an ethical obligation to disclose. My claim would be that the conditions were adopted as part of that process that would not be adopted with a condition specific review. I'll talk a little bit more in a second about how the current review process works. So a couple other challenges. Research on rare conditions faces serious obstacles. And so the reason we don't have good data isn't meant to be a criticism or the research community. It's meant to be an observation about how challenging this entire domain is. When you have some of these conditions that are 1 in 20,000 kids, 1 in 50,000 kids, some of them 1 in 100,000, how do you do research on those? Any one clinician may only have a couple of kids that they see as part of their life practice. So without an opportunity to pool children across the country and have uniform approaches to research on appropriate interventions, then our knowledge and confidence in this whole domain will continue to lag. And I would draw the parallel with how leukemia care was for kids 40 years ago. The decision was made to, with children's oncology group and those sorts of systems, to pool, to put kids on protocol as a collaborative effort. And the progress with the care of those kids has been enormous because you're not dealing with individual clinicians making individual level decisions about what they think might be best. So this would be a model that I would very much encourage us to think about in this context. In addition, newborn screening programs take care of the kids until they're plugged into a subspecialist. Most do not collect data after the kids leave that initial phase of their life. And so we don't have long-term data on how the kids do. How do we know which dietary interventions are working best for kids? How do we know how well the programs in general are working without that longer-term data collection? So these are state-based programs. And the beauty of being a state-based program at this point is that it's uniformly accessible for everybody. It's designed to provide this service to every child, regardless of their geographic location, economic background, insurance status, et cetera. So that's been a pillar of this particular process. But that does provide challenges for us in terms of the costs that might be absorbed as part of that program. We'll talk a little bit more about that. So as we talked, as I mentioned earlier, newborn screening is a mandatory in most states. Therefore, we have to have, according to the, if you're following the basic justification for mandatory program that it's so beneficial to kids that you can't allow parents a choice about this sort of thing, then you have to maintain that level of benefit in order to feel comfortable in mandating tests that you may be uncertain about the long-term benefit. So the scope of conditions to be targeted is a long-term debate in this domain. Dwayne Alexander, a former head of NICHD and Peter Van Dijk, HRSA, had wrote this paper in 2006, and this has been much discussed. And what they were suggesting was that the technology changes may lead us to the point where we are thinking about what conditions we won't put on a newborn screening panel. Their suggestion here was, well, maybe we wouldn't test newborns for Huntington's disease as a relatively extreme example, but that then opens the barn doors quite wide for almost anything else that would be less contentious than something like Huntington's disease in a newborn. So here's the problem. Wilson and Younger were the crafters some 50 years or so ago of the original criteria for population screening, not newborn screening per se, but just population screening in general. And they said this general idea of early disease-detected treatment is essentially simple. However, the path to a successful achievement is far from simple, although sometimes it may appear deceptively easy. The population, and I think clinicians in general, really like the notion of screening. It makes so much sense. Why don't we just look for these things early and do something about it? In practice, though, they're much more complicated. Here's a more recent contemporary synthesis of the criteria for population screening by Anderman, and I've just highlighted a couple here that are particularly relevant to this conversation. You should have some objectives. What's your objective? What are you looking for? Do you have scientific evidence of effectiveness? Have you informed choice about the screening modality? So meeting these sorts of criteria is an enormous challenge. In addition, you have to have a philosophic foundation about what it is that justifies your enterprise. And this was a statement from the Institute of Medicine about newborn screening from back 1994. Newborn screening should not be undertaken unless there's a clear, immediate benefit to the particular infant being screened. So this has been one poll, and this is what Dwayne Alexander and Peter Van Dyke were arguing against, to say let's move away from this big benefit to the baby criterion and think about benefits to other people. Now you can see in this circumstance where the baby may not benefit at all, let's say for a particular modality. But parents are informed that they're at risk for bearing a second child. And they're informed that it entirely mattered before they get pregnant again. Or you might say, what a tremendous benefit, and there's certainly literature out there that strongly support this. These parents go through a very difficult time frequently with these rare conditions in getting to a diagnosis. The so-called diagnostic odyssey is a significant burden to families. Newborn screening eliminates a diagnostic odyssey, benefits families in that regard, even in the absence of any particular benefit to the baby. So there's where the debate is focusing. Are those benefits to other people, specifically parents, of sufficient magnitude that we don't need benefits to babies any longer? Or do we want to hold fast to this particular principle? So wide variation from state to state on what was tested for, that's changed now with the ACMG statement. And in part what's happened, in large measure what's happened, is there's a new body there, Secretary's Advisory Committee for Heritable Diseases in Newborns and Children, of which I'm a member. And this is an evidence-based process to try to tackle this question. What ought to be part of the newborn screening panel? Much more rigorous process for condition-specific decisions to get on to the so-called recommended uniform screening panel. So it's condition-specific. You show me, and this is what the Secretary's Advisory Committee will say, show us the population-based studies that demonstrate the improved outcomes with early detection for this particular condition. You'll be happy to know I won't go through this in detail, but this is the rubric for decision-making for the Secretary's Advisory Committee. They look for benefit for the baby. They look for readiness for programs to implement the testing. They look for feasibility that has to do with the quality of the test, sensitivity, specificity, cost, and able to conduct it with throughput that would support a population-wide approach. So the general point is here, we've tried to get much more formal and specific about the process by which these conditions would be approved. So the point in the next couple of slides is just that the population screening is a real challenge. And again, despite that's intuitive attractiveness, in fact, making it work is a problem. And we have many conditions for which we don't either have good data to suggest efficacy or data to suggest that they don't work as well as we might hope. So this is the US Preventive Services Task Force set of recommendations. They don't do newborn screening, but they have commented in the past, reviewed in the past, PKU congenital hyperthyroidism sickle cell disease, which get a grade A. Newborn hearing screening, though, gets grade B. And other things like iron deficiency, insufficient evidence, lead, grade D. So you can see that things that would seem to make sense in general oftentimes are challenged to meet the demands of a rigorous evidence review process. In adults, similar sort of process here. Colon cancer, pap spare, hypertension, tobacco use, these are all things that US Preventive Services Task Force at least, thought, married to the grade A for their utility. But lots of debate about these things. PSA, screening grade D, mammography is grade B. This has not been informed by some of the more recent literature about mammography that has raised more questions about its efficacy. But things like osteoporosis and even history and behavioral counseling for cardiovascular disease, they gave a grade C. And this is not to say that this is all the right answers for these things, but just to highlight for you the challenges associated with population-based screening. So what are we screening for? We could be screening for established conditions already at a newborn screening panel, but potentially move to a DNA-based platform for that. Not clear, though, in many circumstances that genetic tests or DNA-based tests are more sensitive or specific than current test modalities. A good example is cystic fibrosis. We know a lot about the genetics of CF, more than 1,000 different mutations characterized. But IRT, I mean, our reactive trypsin, is still the initial screening test on newborn screening and the definitive test for kids identified is still the sweat test. So DNA-based analysis is part of the testing sequence, but it's not the definitive diagnosis or the triggering test being used. So there's questions about whether products of metabolism may continue to be better tools for screening than DNA-based tests. Now, there are some new ones coming along. SMA, spinal muscular astrophy, for example, looks like it's got a test with good sensitivity and specificity. Folks have been talking about fragile X newborn screening for a while. So it's certainly possible that a variety of tests that may be emerging over the coming years will be DNA-based analyses, but these are probably going to be conducted as targeted test as opposed to a whole genome or whole exome sequencing approach. So there's no question that this approach would enable a large expansion of conditions targeted. The ACMG, just in the last month or two, has come out with a statement that provides some significant analysis of conditions which they consider to be actionable and that ought to be part of every sequence conducted at laboratories conducting this type of work. 57 genes and 24 different conditions are on this list. So that presumably would be part of a potential panel for newborn screening. Carrier states, of course, are ubiquitous. Cancer syndromes that are also part of the ACMG list, but just to highlight these, these may be adult or pediatric onset cancer syndromes. And then, of course, there's a whole host of things that are part of the emerging landscape out there, the 23andMe sort of testing results where folks can get putative results in what their relative risk is for a whole host of conditions like diabetes or heart disease, Alzheimer's, earwax, et cetera. So all of these things could potentially be part of this panel if this is the type of data that's being generated out of the newborn period of time. So we look specifically then at the ACMG list of 57 genes, 24 conditions as a initial target subset here. Estimates that about 1% of those individuals will have positive findings. Back at the envelope calculation, four million babies born per year. Now that's 40,000 kids with positive results. That's three to four times the current rate of true positive results within the system. And obviously that number would be substantially larger if we're talking about carrier states and other conditions. We have no infrastructure to deal with anything close to that volume. Primary care providers struggle with the newborn screening system now because they don't understand the diseases very well and they're heavily tied on the state programs and local experts to help manage these kids. Primary care providers, I can tell you, certainly aren't prepared to deal with this flood of information. And we would question whether we have the subspecialty population to genetic counselors and geneticists to be able to deal with this. Now if it's worthwhile, of course, we'll develop those resources. But at the present time, they don't exist. So here's another ethical angle here that's been part of the recent debate. This type of information would generate information on adult onset conditions in a newborn. Now the new report out of the ACMG recommends reporting these to parents for the parental benefit. So if you find a BRCA1 and a baby, that's not immediately relevant to that baby. It may well be in 30 years. But it's relevant to one of the parents who's, you're pretty sure it's BRCA1 mutation carrier. So you would report the results out on the baby because the parents might benefit from that information. This is a highly contentious element of that recent report because the tradition has mostly been not to screen babies for adult onset conditions. You screen kids for things you can do during childhood. And this is a way of promoting the autonomy of the child and concerned about uncertain psychological impacts of risk information for both the child and the parent child relationship. So this is a matter of much more debate going forward about what our ethical obligations might be for conditions of this sort that are detected in that period of time. So burdens of false positives. Most important adverse consequence population screening. We know this parental anxiety associated with this. Cost to follow up testing is one of the biggest elements of the testing programs. Finding folks, bringing them back in for confirmatory testing. The positive predictive value for most of the current tests is one to 40%, meaning the majority of positive results are false positive results. And as mentioned, we know from a long line of literature that about 10 to 20% or so of parents remain concerned about the health of their baby. The docs told them everything's okay, don't worry. Well, they do worry.  And if you're told something's wrong with your baby, that's a big deal. At least for a subset of parents who have trouble getting over that information. And ambiguous results. We also know that oftentimes folks can deal pretty well with adverse results, but they have somewhat more trouble in many circumstances dealing with ambiguous results.  So these ambiguous results are with us for a period of time with this type of sequencing and would have to be decided about whether you would return these results to begin with and how you would help folks deal with this information. Cost issues. Kip fee is for new board screening, as I mentioned, or about $100 or so. Charged from the birth facility. Incremental charges for new tests are often in a two to five dollar range per new board. And we have an annual discussion with our legislature about whether that is tests are warranted or not. Even though the cost is neutral from a state's perspective, they approve the Kip fee increase every year. And so if we think just on back of the envelope context, $1,000 genome will assume that cost comes down, but some of the costs associated with that won't come down. Data analysis is a human labor initiative. Family notification and follow up cost for confirmatory testing. These sorts of things, of course, will exist. So again, very simplistic sort of calculation here for thinking at a day when all of those costs might be bundled into $1,000. That's $4 billion per year for sequencing. Spending $4 billion more for kids is a great idea, but we would question whether this is the most cost effective way of spending that amount of money for the welfare of children. So couple of quick conclusions then. Current newborn screening system is highly affected for some conditions, but struggles with funding, uncertain benefits for other conditions and lack of adequate research. Population screening is notoriously complex and relatively few instances of highly effective population screening programs. So we have to have the evidence that this approach will be beneficial to babies. So whole genome exome sequencing as a primary screening tool, I think would fundamentally change the philosophy of the programs, increased cost, increased burdens of false or ambiguous results, and confer uncertain benefits without a much more robust system to conduct the research in longer term follow up. So given these additional burdens and uncertain benefits, sequencing and newborn screening would not be justified under the state mandate. So I wanna come back to that foundational aspect. These are mandated systems and you're very hard pressed to say the state's gonna mandate whole genome sequencing for a baby without clear evidence that at this point is a compelling benefit to the baby. So implementation of informed consent process would be necessary. This could be conducted as a commercial supplement without much difficulty from that perspective at least. And you could potentially get prenatal consent for this. Now we currently have a project, the NIH funded project to do prenatal education about newborn screening. I can tell you we're working hard with our OB colleagues to get 10 minutes of time to talk about this issue. And so talk about newborn screening in general, much less what might be necessary for a whole genome sequencing discussion. So Louis Thomas was a wonderful writer about biological issues and he talked about technologies at several levels. Non-technologies, counseling, hand holding, support, decisive technologies, which he characterized as his prime example there was immunization, elegant and effective. And a most creative aspect was this notion of halfway technologies, things that look sophisticated that are sophisticated at a certain level but still are founded on a basic misunderstanding or lack of understanding yet about the foundational aspects of human biology for which the technology is directed. So to a certain extent, I think the whole genome sequencing now while highly effective and beautifully designed in many respects still is founded on a basic lack of understanding about how to translate this into effective interventions for kids. So from my perspective, whole genome exome sequencing makes little sense as a primary screening tool but makes enormous sense as a research tool to better understand the genetics of a host of important complex, uncommon conditions. We need to better understand these diseases and this technology is beautifully designed to help us better understand these kids and bring more effective screening and treatment to affected children. But final point here, we need better research systems to ascertain short and long-term benefits of these screening technologies. We've got, nobody wants to stop the development of more sophisticated analytic tools but we have to understand that we need those longer-term systems that aren't quite as sexy but they're gonna provide us with the evidence about whether generating this information confers benefits on kids or families or not. And in the absence of those sorts of systems to draw those conclusions, we're gonna be stuck with a powerful technology and lots of uncertainties about the best way to use it. So, in the mecca of research here, I'm making a pitch for those systems. Okay, thank you. We have time for a quick question. Is that anybody going to a microphone? If not, the question I guess I would have for you is you made the point earlier that educating parents even about current newborn screening routines very difficult and uptake is actually very poor. Is it, if we ever moved to a world of newborn sequencing, would it even make a difference or are we so, people so low on a learning curve and uptake that it's almost a trivial difference for them? Well, and I have some hope with the innovative educational modalities to improve parental education about this. And what the public surveys consistently shows, everybody says, why don't you talk about this during pregnancy? You've got nine months. I'm very interested in anything about the babies. Let's talk about it then. So, I think there's opportunities to do that but I would have to say in this little bit more of a skeptical angle on the response. It's not been clear to me that health departments have wanted a robust education outreach because everybody signs up for this. The more they know, then they're afraid the more folks are gonna say no. I think that's not correct but that's an empirical question that we hope to answer with some of our work. Okay, we're gonna move on. We're gonna actually switch the program slightly. Our next speaker is David Williams and Dr. Williams has a lecture he has to give this afternoon back at Harvard and he has an airplane to catch so we're gonna switch it around and do the video right after his talk. And so, we're gonna now hear genomics and disparities in health and healthcare challenges and opportunities.


This Asian female Google executive is trending on the internet right now before the wrong reasons. Yeah, this is going viral and a lot of different spheres for a lot of different reasons. Long story short, Andrew, Ryan Olihan is suing Google and Tiffany Miller for wrongful termination. Long story short, he's saying Tiffany Miller, who's from another sector of Google, was making sexual advances towards him. He rejected it. And basically she got mad over time that he kept rejecting her colluded with HR to get him fired. Now he's suing Google and her for millions of dollars. Yeah, I mean the internet is having a field day with this one for a few reasons. One, it's a woman harassing a man at the workplace, which usually more commonly you would think is the other way around. So that breaks that kind of like belief. And then number two, it is an Asian female versus a white male, which of course brings up the idea of fetishization. There's another layer to it. I guess that's interesting is that I believe that she is married to a white guy already and then she's hitting on a white guy who is married to an Asian woman. So it's just they both, it's like, is it a, is it makes sense or is it a weird whatever? I'm telling you man, even a K drama writer, a novella writer may have trouble thinking of this messiness at Google. I think it's coming on the heels of the layoffs. Andrew, people are like, Hey, what's going on over there? So make sure you like, subscribe, turn on your notifications. By the way, of course we still love the YouTube platform that is owned by Google. But let's get into it. Andrew, on the mainstream publications, this article went viral and of course the comments section turned into a war between men and women and power dynamics, gender power dynamics in the workplace. Whose side is HR commonly on? Why didn't HR escalate this? This is because everything stacked against men, even though pre 1970 it was stacked against women and it's just a pendulum that's swinging in both directions unfairly. Yeah, no, I mean, that's exactly where a lot of the conversation is right now. Also, yeah, a lot of people are like, Oh yeah, what if the roles were switched? This would be a way bigger deal.  Some people are like, Hey, why is a guy like Ryan O'Lohan working at Google, which I thought was a place for nerds like this guy's super good looking. What kind of alpha chat is this? He was the director of like food and beverage. And if you guys don't know, Google is a humongous company with a humongous campus that there is a lot of food and beverage things go around. He was basically like the jock bro at Google. Basically, Google is so big they have a lot of different sectors now. And of course, more shallow things. People were like, dude, do you think she was even hot enough to get Ryan O'Lohan? Like, I don't think she was hot enough. I'm not saying she's not pretty, but she wasn't hot. And this guy was hot. Yeah, man. She's kind of a plain Jane. What do you think he's going to risk his family and wife for this? I like, like they're basically saying if she was hotter, the situation would be different. Either way, what she allegedly did is wrong. Well, you know, the crazy thing is, I think in a weird way, his high like value looks wise does like help his case a little bit. Yeah. Bring that in court. Your honor, look at Ryan. Some people said, Hey, man, I wouldn't have made it a big deal. In fact, I would have accepted Tiffany Miller's advances if I was right. I'm assuming this guy does not look like Ryan O'Lohan. Somebody said he's never going to win against a woman of color in the court of law. Plus men never win sexual harassment suits. She was rubbing his abs. She was rubbing his abs and nobody's going to do anything. Yeah. I mean, regardless if what she did is true. Yeah, she shouldn't be doing that. But there was also people on the pro woman side digging their heels in the sand going, you know what? I'm always by default going to believe the woman, even if she's the accuser or she's the defendant or I mean, I'm sorry, she was the attacker in this situation. We still have to believe women. We don't know. And that's probably the feeling to make up for all those years, decades of women getting like harassed in the workplace and then nothing happened. Yeah.  And that's why this is going viral. Of course, Andrew, now we got to get into the reaction of the Asian internet spheres. You know, guys, let's just keep it real. The discussion was different over here than it was on the mainstream platforms. A lot of people were like, hey, guys, I just want to wonder this. When I see this, Tiffany Miller versus Ryan Olehann thing.  They would never do this for any of the Asian guys at Google, even though they're Asian. Yo, isn't there's this like show on Netflix where like this exact thing happened? Oh, yeah.  There's a girl named Francesca who loves a good looking white guy named Cooper. So I don't know. I'm just saying a lot of people were drawing a lot of things there. Some people were saying, yeah, see all this talk about white guys having yellow fever. What about these Asian women having white fever? Yeah. No, I mean, definitely I think that there is a healthy conversation to be had about fetishization on both sides. I mean, because it takes two to tango. We know this. And here's another layer, Andrew. Olahan is a Scottish last name. And I think she's married to a white guy. The last name Miller, who also that last name can be attributed to that same, you know, UK region. Allegedly, we don't know. It's unconfirmed guys. We're just going to be a Scottish fetish. Um, Scottish guys are. And then if his wife's Chinese, then he has a Chinese fetish or not because he's loyal. Yeah. Allegedly. Somebody said, Hey guys, I work deep in tech.  It goes all the way back to Larry Page and Marissa Meyer. This is just a culture at Google.  And I think that a lot of in a lot of workplaces, people do hook up and date. That's like fairly common because you're around these people a lot. So a lot of people meet their significant other through these types of things. I think it happens less than Microsoft. I don't know. I'm just thinking Google. Microsoft is in Seattle. It's not as fun. New York city. Please go. No, no, some of the New York hookup culture like seeped into the, yeah, dude. It's, uh, I mean, she was saying stuff like, Hey Ryan, my marriage lacks some spice. Does yours, like, I know you like Asian women because you're married to an Asian one. Allegedly. Yeah. Moving on to our final takeaways. Andrew, this is so crazy, man. I read through so many internet comments, some were serious, some were non serious, some were emotionally charged. Other people were just making jokes and memes. I would say this man, it does seem like for the 45 year old age range that Tiffany Miller and Ryan O'Lehan are on that some Asian women sort of treated the hot white guys like bad bunny and they were part of the bad bunny fan club.   Uh, and I think a lot of people agree that that is the feeling. That's how they perceive it. And that's the observations that they've had, right? Right. Like just even out in the streets. Yeah. Um, yeah, definitely. And I guess it kind of reminds me of like, I don't know. Is it, is it that every Asian girl that like gets a certain level of success in American society? Obviously she made a pretty good amount of money. She was working at Google high up as a, even though it was a non-core engineering, non-technical position. Like, uh, is this sort of like MBA players, how they all get like a white wife or like a very, very, you know, mixed looking wife? Uh, I don't know. Basically a group not really fully obviously valuing itself. Well, basically the question is like, when Asians rise up, do they behave like that? And do they want to more marry into the white blood lines? Right? Are they married white people? Because white people are also at the top. Right. She didn't get with any of the data scientists or machine learning people at Google who are Asian, who look like this. I also don't want to base everything off of this case, but I just think that if you are someone who is trying to always say like, what do you mean Asian women don't like white guys that much? It's like, this does not help your case. Right. This actually just reconfirms everything that everybody believes, but I will say this guys. Uh, it's just another new story, right? And it's dealing with people who work in the together and we're at this point in time where there's a lot of Asian people who work at Google. Yeah. This same case has not happened to an Asian guy yet. Um, but maybe, maybe it will soon. I don't know. But either way, I wouldn't let each and every new story control your emotions about everything. Right. You got to still get out there.  You got to not enter. When you say get out there, you got to get out of English speaking. Well, you got to travel. You got to travel outside of the country. You got to live life guys. If you have the opportunity to work from home, you should move around. I do think it's changing because you got to look, think about the 45 year olds. They came from a very, very specific set of certain social dynamics. This is like pre Asia, pre everything, pre video. I mean, listen, guys, as, as Asian guys, uh, there's a lot of reasons to feel down on yourself sometimes, but like things are getting better. And you know, you just have to ride that wave while knowing that this wave or this type of stuff can still happen. So for sure. Anyway, let us know in the comment section below. Why do you think this case went so viral? Were you on the Asian internet side, or were you on the mainstream side? Where are your thoughts and let us know why everybody is extrapolating so many macro trends from this. Until next time, we the hop up boys, we out. Peace.


What's up, everyone? It's your girl, Kenty here from Layton Sports Cards, and I am ripping 21-22 Panini Chronicles soccer hobby six box break number one random teams. Again, everyone got three teams per league. We had the Syria La Liga and Premier League. So you got one team from each of those leagues. I'll leave this here for a second so you can see again who you had. Here we go. Wish me luck on some of these names. Make fun of me as much as you guys would like because boy I ripped a couple parts off of these and I was just... So we're going to start with the Premier League on box one and we got one auto or memorabilia per mini box. I'm going to read off every single one of these cards. Min Sun out of origins. We've got a Cole Palmer rookie. Nalison. Nice one there out of certified. Not numbered on that. Monet. We've got a silver out of select. Kwon Min Sun from Tottenham. First hit up. We've got from Man City. Patch out of 500 Ruben Diaz. Cool looking patch there. We've got 2.99 of Ivan Tony that is Brentford. Ben Mark and a Chalaba rookie Chelsea. All right, La Liga next. The one I really am not familiar with is the Syria. Some of those I can barely pronounce the teams in that league, but along the players. Not... There's not too much stuff that comes out with that league though, you know? Like most of your an avid soccer watcher, which I am not. Valamund. Rannos. Cina. What's up Joshua? Rookie of Manu. Morellanus. Cantina and a Guti. Next hit up. We've got Otto out of Norsocker from one out of 199. Roberto Carlos. Carlos or Roberta? No, Roberta Carlos from Real Madrid. That's sick. Love the Norsocker. That's really nice set there. Again, Real Madrid. It's gonna take me a while to find out who has these teams too. I've got a Real Madrid Chris V. Look at three different columns there. We have out 99 Vinicius Jr. Real Madrid. Rookie out of Select of Gavi for Barcelona. And Ruben Garcia. All right, Syria. Yeah, you did, huh? It's been crazy. It's been absolutely insane. Now you get to tune in to me trying to pronounce some soccer names. Sanchez. Gnado. Zapita. Lukic. We've got Perisic. Ivan Perisic. And Darmayan. Next hit up. We've got an XR patch out of 199. Nicolo. Colasse. Colasse. Hi, Forrest. There you go. Let's take a nap now. Take a nap at quarter to nine. So you're going to sleep then. That one was backwards. Perisic and Ryderby. That'll do it for box one. Yeah, Gucci, I don't watch too much soccer, so not the best. And soccer names are definitely up there on the pronunciation difficulties. All right, this was Premier League. Danny Ince. Gavani. Bergwin. Truist Econ. Jimenez. We've got out of Spectra, Silver of Ederson for Man City. That's a beautiful looking car. That's the 49. One of 49. Oh, come on. Show me some ink. Christian Polisic.  Oh boy, that'd be a big one. So 199. Chelsea FC on that one. Still a nice car there. Takuma Kay with Chelsea FC. Ward Prowse on the selects and Westwood from Burnley. All right, La Liga. Mir Tapia. Marti. Morlanes. Cantina. We've got Rookie Ticket Hollow of Gavi from FC Barcelona. It's a beautiful looking car. Very nice. Barcelona. We've got Origins Auto 6 of 10. Gold, one-fourth from Villaril. This was... That's a beautiful looking car. CF. Eric M. There you go. Sorry, it took me a minute to find it. Again, I'm looking through three columns of the teams. We'll mag that to 10. Beautiful car. All right, Serie A. Iboni, Correa, Sorbelli, Avena, Gribala, Gonzalez. We've got a Mobile from SS Lazio. Lazio. 7 of 49. Then we've got Origins Auto out of 501. Musso from Adal. A lot. It almost looks like Atlanta. Team Adalanta. SC. Love the Origins Auto. For Basketball Mook, we did. I'm not sure if they're available for personals yet. I'm not sure. I'm going to check the website. I know we got some in because we got some mixers for Friday. Yeah, yeah. There we get it. Yep, I'll be open in Friday morning Gucci. Okay, Jesus. Minson. Phillips. Nice one here for Chelsea. We've got Patch to 199. Timo Werner. Chelsea FC. Nice patch. We've got Cracked Ice to 23 of Michello on Tonio and Tonio for West Ham. Beautiful looking car there at a 23. Saki, Rookie, and Kevin De Bruyne. Kevin De Bruyne. Man City. All right, La Liga. Bonzano, Martín Morlanes. A Contina, Rookie. We have Patch to 99 out of XR of Vinicius Jr., Vinicius Jr., Real Madrid, Pelle Estrini, Rookie out of Origins, Carlos, Blue to 99 of George de Frutos, Lozano, and a Pinot, Rookie from Villarreal, Sia, Ciri, Povic, Vasquez, Callan, Rookie, Morata, Pelle. We got Blue Rookie of Moro. That one is not numbered. That is SS Lazio, Rookie. We've got another Nor-Auto to 99 of Francisco Toti. Another Nor-Auto though. AS Roma. That is Jeffrey K. Nice hit, Jeffrey. Ibrahimovic. So 99, Rookie of Yanis on T-Stay, Soto, and Van Houston, Rookie. Box four here, and we are red. The OBS is red. Primarily stream. Is this stream frozen for you? It's green now. Col Palmer. We've got Allison. Wow. Orange cracked eyes to 23. Cristiano Ronaldo. Wow. Man, you. Whoa. That is a big card. There is Man U. Jeffrey K. Wow. Orange cracked eyes out of select. My goodness. Hey, I said, let's go Ronaldo, did I not? Seven, if that's Jersey number two, right? Ronaldo seven. I believe he is. Wow. That is Jersey number two. Seven of 23. What a night. My goodness. To 99, Ben Chouel, or Chelsea FC. Yeah, I dropped frames for a bit, Nick. Saka, we've got to 99, Jacob Motor from Brighton and Hope, Minson, and a Alise Rookie. All right, LaLiga. Might not know much about soccer, but I know Ronaldo. That's a good one. Let's see some Messi now. Let's see some Messi, okay? Black Hugo Nguro. Not numbered. Rodrigo. Here's a cool one. We've got Contender's autographs to 389 of Iago Espas from R.C. Seltas. R.C. Seltas. We've got Lorente, Garcia, Lozano out of 99. Pedri on the selects, and Avria. All right, Serie A. I hope you behind it too much. You gave me plenty of time for soccer. I was going to say, yeah. What? Like 45 minutes, I think, for just six boxes. I got to take some Advil. My head's starting to hurt. I'm pulling some big cards. Lots of boos. Missola, Anderson Rookie. We've got another crack base here. How about a Cedro in mobile? I got to be butchering that. There's no way his last name is in mobile. That one is the 23 as well. SS Lazio. Let's see who had SS Lazio. SS Lazio, Chris V. Nice one there. The 23. I put that on the wrong size. Here you go on the crack base. We'll mag that one too. You've got playoff patch to $2.99 of Bandro Tenali for AC Milan. Sanchez, just backwards. Pedro and Satel. Box five in mobile. So it is close to in mobile. In mobile. Theoretically, yeah. It looks like English reading that it's in mobile. Thank you all for your patience while I rip some soccer. I do appreciate it. Pedro. Got Mason Mounts out of origins. Zaha. Zola's Rookie. A Raheem Sterling. Creswell, heard that name before. We've got patch for the Wolverhampton out of 99 Daniel Potts. Nice one there. It's a cool looking patch. That fourth day. Phillips. We've got Green. One of five. Shay Adams from Certified. One of five. That is South Hampton FC. FC FC. Yes, Michael M. One of five. Thank you. Looking through those three calls. One of five. Congrats on that. We'll mag that one. Wilson and Gordon Rookie. We've got Nora out of $199 of Igo Aspas. We can told him earlier. From RC SELTA. His base right after it. Out of 99 Jose Jimenez. David Silva and Molo. We've got patch to $199. Nicolo Calasse. Or Casale. Casale. Just put backwards. And Capari. All right. Last box here, y'all. Yeah. Got to type in the names for the next one too, but it'll still be good as well. This took me 20 minutes. 25 minutes. That Rinaldo crack dice is nasty. Elliott. Salah. Silva. Can you check where we are on the Mosaic for me? I think it's sold out. Is it? Yicong. Jimenez. We've got Ayley on Bailey. And so now F1. We're looking to fill? Yeah. Five left. Five. We got to 249. Jaden Sancho. It's forward for Man U. All right. So soccer is all filled up for tonight, everyone. Looking to fill F1 Sapphire. Five box down to five spots on that one. That one breaks after a soccer. We've got to 99. A Daniel Podes. Zaha and Harvey Barnes. LaLiga. Suarez. Moriba. Accio. Gutierrez. Rookie. We've got three of 10. Rookie Otto of Matthew Hoppe. Hoppe. From RCD. RCD Mallorca. Mallorca. RC Mallorca. This RCD Mallorca.  We'll mag this one for you. Felix Correa. Patrick H. Patrick H. Where was it? In the first column. Luis Suarez. Nice one there to 99. Lamella and Dia. Rookie. I couldn't look too long. My head was starting to, I need to take some Advil off of this one. How many booms tonight, y'all? It's been crazy.  He's even carrying in the soccer with that, Ronaldo. Next up, we've got Contender's Autos to 289. Dennis Carrant. From Torino FC. Only Contender's Auto. Got to 99. Gianluca. Buccio. McKinney. And Thomas Henry. Rookie. All right, let's do a quick recap here. Nice soccer break for sure. We had Sancho Manu, A. Nicolo Casale. From Helles Verona FC. Daniel Potts to 99. Pat from Wolverhampton. That was 299 Sandro Tonali from AC Milan. Ben Chihwell from Chelsea FC. Vinicius Jr. That was Real Madrid. Timo Werner for Chelsea FC. Christian Polisic. Nice one there, Chelsea. Nicolo Calasse. Las Verona FC. And Ruben Diaz to 500 from Man City. We had our Autos and Patches here. Dennis Preyot from Torino FC. Out of 199. A Iago Aspas from RC Salta. Iago Aspas from RC Salta as well. Franesco Totti from AS Roma. Julian Musso from Falata SC. Out of 199. Roberto Carlos from Real Madrid. And our Max Cards. We had one out of five Che Adams from Southampton. Chiro and Mowbley. Cracked Ice to 23. Nice one there, SS Lazio. A one-fourth. Gold Origins Auto to 10 from CF. We had another Gold to 10, Nor of Matthew Hoppe from RCD Malo Arca. And then how about a Cracked Ice Orange to 23. Ronaldo. Jersey number 7 of 23. Man U. Congrats again. Thank you all so much. We've got another one of these coming right up.


You know, it's funny.  It's not the routine You're just not eating enough first. Let's explain what starting strength is from their website The starting strength system makes use of the body's most basic movement patterns Barbell exercises that involve all the body's muscle mass Utilized over the longest effect of range of motion and loaded progressively to force the adaptations necessary for increased strength Unlike other popular exercise protocols starting strength is a training system a long-term process designed for getting stronger over time Not a random collection of exercises that just make you hot sweaty sore confused and tired today, so that's their explanation of the routine and if you're not exercising to be hot sweaty and sore What's the point of going into a gym in reality? Starting strength is an incredibly low volume three-day lifting routine It starts with three sets of five reps each of squat bench press and deadlifts Literally nine sets in the entire routine Whereas most bodybuilding routines might do nine sets just for biceps a smaller muscle group let alone the entire body Not only is the volume incredibly low the rest time is long three to five minutes between sets Makes it difficult to actually take the muscle to failure and have a high intensity I think this guy mark riptoe that made this routine is really connected and has some type of multi-level marketing scheme going because there's no other explanation for the routine's popularity Like hey hey it might work for some people, but at face value The package that's being offered doesn't seem that appealing from the information in the routine how the guy looks You know what success stories are there you got a bunch of skinny fat power lifters like come on And there's actually another routine called strong lifts, which is fairly similar So most of my suggestions do apply to both of these routines Even though strong lifts is slightly higher volume It's basically identical and I really don't get it if it's supposed to be a simple three-day per week routine You could be much more efficient in the gym if you're resting that much between sets You know someone doing starting strength might complete nine sets in one hour Whereas with my very high volume lifting routine I might do over 50 sets in the same period of time You know, I'm doing four to five times the volume of starting strength Is that four to five times as effective? No, but it's close now does the routine work Of course it does but anyone that goes in a gym as a beginner will gain muscle and strength You know same thing with someone jerking off every day with their right arm their forearms gonna get muscular For me, I did starting strength, but plateaued very quickly my bench pressed stalled around 185 pounds squat around 225 and deadlift around 275 I was gaining strength But not real size and I probably weighed about 125 pounds at the time when I was 13 14 And when I increase the volume slightly from starting strength to a five by five routine I was able to break past that plateau and add about 30 to 40 pounds to each lift But then I stalled again and even for a natural lifter You know, you should be able to bench press more than you know 225 pounds at your peak and at that point regardless of how much volume I added With that training style repetition tempo focus on compound movements I wasn't getting stronger and I certainly wasn't getting bigger as I weighed around 135 pounds towards the end of my five by five nonsense. You have to understand It's a powerlifting routine not a size routine and a person's strength is Greatly dependent on their body frame size They're natural testosterone levels as soon as I joined a real gym instead of using that barbell in my garage to do the big three I adapted a classic bro split bodybuilding routine chest triceps Monday back biceps Tuesday Legs Wednesday shoulders Thursday arms Friday five days a week and I completely blew up in size at my peak I weighed around 185 pounds and that was without working too hard on my legs Now to me that wasn't even the most optimal routine I followed took me about five years of lifting weights on that bro split bodybuilding routine to gain 50 pounds and I think I would have achieved it much faster on a properly done a full-body routine from my personal understanding of starting strength If your goal is to do anything in the gym even get stronger You can spend your time more efficiently starting strength has flaws on every single aspect of the routine the overall volume The rest time the exercise choices training frequency You need to incorporate more sets and in order to increase the volume you can't be resting three to five minutes Exercises have to be switched up to properly isolate the muscles Plus you have to be in the gym as often as you can to build muscle as efficiently as possible not just two or three out of the seven days of the week and I don't even think those exercises are a great base for strength How can you justify doing barbell movements when most people have asymmetrical strength on their right and left sides? I would argue most beginner lifters should be using separate arm movements Majorly for the first few months of their training routine to correct those left and right side imbalances from previous Every day life and even for myself. That's still something I incorporate in my routine After lifting weights for over 10 years Regardless of your starting point if you haven't worked out before and you start googling stuff like beginner exercise routine It's all super confusing and most people would benefit greatly from having a personal trainer initially You know, there's some good ones.    It kind of makes the most sense from what I've seen There is no popular routine whose overarching goal is correct Stimulate as much muscle as frequently as possible to reach your goal, whether it's body building power lifting calisthenics Whatever sport football doesn't matter the person needs to understand that if they aren't seeing Jurassic results in three to four months the routine is not effective and you guys saw my dramatic transformation over the initial six Months of my bodybuilding trial even with muscle memory It's hard to deny the effectiveness of a high volume routine when done consistently My piece of advice, if someone recommends starting strength, they have no clue what they're talking about They haven't experimented enough with weight training to give you advice It might be simple get some people in the gym get you some 14-inch biceps But there's just so much wrong, you know everything we've mentioned the low volume Difficult compound movements you're better off doing push-ups pull-ups and squats every day in your garage in most cases So thank you guys for joining me. Let me know how you like this and what type of fitness content you would like to see in the future You guys know how to support me I'll go to frank-defano.com to check out everything like Frankie syringe meat Frankie's naturals You can reach out to me for consultations. My book is on there everything you need to see So thanks again for joining me today guys, and I'll see you for tomorrow's video


Russia on Sunday claimed to have shot down Ukrainian fighter jets and drones and destroyed Ukraine's weaponry provided by several other countries, while the Ukrainian side said it shot down one Russian Sukhoi Su-34 fighter jet, attacked Russian troops' concentrations and destroyed Russian weaponry and continued fighting between the two sides over the past 24 hours. The Russian Defense Ministry reported in a briefing on Sunday that Russian forces repelled attacks from the Ukrainian side in Kyupyansk. In eastern Ukraine, Kharkiv and northeastern Ukraine, Zaparazhe in southeastern Ukraine and Kursen in southern Ukraine, destroying Ukraine's ammunition depots as well as weaponry from other countries, such as USA made M109 and M777 Howitzers, launchers for anti-aircraft missile systems, aircrafts, navigational aids and airborne ammunition manufactured by Norway and France. Russian forces also shot down four Ukrainian fighter jets and 49 drones, as well as intercepted several anti-radar missiles, rockets and anti-ship missiles, said the report dot on the same day, the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine issued a battle report, saying that there had been 48 combat engagements over the past 24 hours to IT claim to have launched strikes on 12 concentrations of troops, weapons and military equipment of the Russian forces, to IT also attacked Russian ammunition depots. And air defense facilities, said the release, the Ukrainian air defense system shot down one Russian Sukhoi Su-34 fighter jet as well, according to the AFU General Staff dot AS for the country's rocket forces and artillery, they said they destroyed two artillery pieces and one command post of Russia.


Welcome to ITU Telecom World 2016 in Bangkok, Thailand. I'm very pleased to be joining the studio today by Professor Umar Garba Dambatta, who is Executive Vice-Chairman and CEO of the Nigerian Communications Commission. Professor Dambatta, thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much. My pleasure. Now I'd like to start off by talking about smart communities. I know it's a key message here and perhaps we could talk a little bit about the importance of it, particularly in Nigeria. I understand why this project on smart communities is important. We need to look at the way legacy systems, processes, and services are being run. We all agree that these are not being run very efficiently. An alternative is needed that can be able to contain the destruction, the unintended destructive effect that this alternative would bring to legacy systems, processes and so on and so forth, as well as ensure that there is improvement in effectiveness, in efficiency, in productivity of what the legacy systems are doing. And there lies the argument for leveraging information and communications technology and bringing it to VR. In the way and manner we are doing things using legacy processes and systems. The whole purpose is to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, at the same time being able to contain the unintended effect of destruction of these processes.  That people are saying it is possible to do this, to transform the way we do things, using legacy processes and systems, as well as be able to contain the unintended destructive effect that smart systems should not bring with them. So the argument will be in favor of full scale adoption of smart processes or a gradual way of doing it. I think in Nigeria we have started experiencing this. We would like to do it, not by going the whole hog. We are trying to go for pilot projects in which we can be able to test the efficacy of smart processes. And then from there the argument for adopting the smart systems in their entirety would have been made from what successes are recorded through the adoption in a piece, mail approach of smart processes, smart systems, smart processes, and so on and so forth. What single factor do you think is most important in stimulating ICT adoption? I think first of all we need to again, it's a related question to the past. What are we trying to do? We all know what ICTs can do. The argument has been made that they can improve tremendously efficiency, effectiveness, and ensure productivity more than the way we are doing things without leveraging the file of ICTs. So the whole essence of adoption of ICT is on the need to improve efficiency, efficacy, as well as productivity in things that we are doing on a day to day basis. We want to be able to do those things better, effectively, and efficiently. And what role do you think regulation can play in driving digital financial services? Well, we need to look at the ecosystem in Nigeria. I'm not saying it is the same in every country. The ecosystem that drives financial inclusion now is one consistent of principle two elements. The banking sector, okay, and the financial regulator, incidentally which is not, you know, the Nigerian Communications Commission. And the results are there for all to see that the mobile money service penetration is too low. It's only 1%. Which confess unparably with 60% for Kenya. Then you need to ask, then how is effective? How effective is this bank-driven money mobile service? Obviously, if that is the kind of penetration, you know, we have in Nigeria. And then all of a sudden, the opportunities that we have are offered by telecommunications companies in Nigeria, together with the fantastic statistics that are there for all to see, you know, it becomes very, very relevant if such services could possibly be extended to drive the money mobile service, you know, in Nigeria. Now, but then we are being very careful. Do we have capacity to bring this additional burden to the telecommunications sector? And I'm talking about capacity in terms of infrastructure. So what did we do? We understand the importance of mobile money service to rural communities, underserved communities, as well as communities that are even unsolved with telecommunication services. We would like to see communities participate in this very, very important, you know, inclusive initiative.  So all of a sudden, then, the need to collaborate, okay, to widen the ecosystem, to include maybe the telecommunication companies, the financial regulator, you know, as well as the users, you know, becomes imperative. And I think that is the stage that Nigeria is now. The telecommunications companies in Nigeria are willing to serve as super agents to drive the mobile money services in Nigeria. The regulator is saying, I need to be convinced that you have capacity, okay, so that the complaints we are getting about poor quality of service are not aggravated by bringing an additional burden to VIA on the telecommunications infrastructure. Once we can address and sort out this, you know, little problems, then I would like to see a situation where the telecommunications companies with their, you know, with their good records of providing, you know, telecommunication services bring that same experience to VIA to the money mobile service, you know, industry. And perhaps we'll see the statistics, you know, changing for the better. Finally, it would be very impressed by Nigeria's Pavilion here. There's a lot of interest in that, but obviously a lot of interest in being here in general. I wanted to find out from you, what's the value of attending events such as ITU Telecom World? Well, this is a very, very collaborative event. There is a facilitation of collaboration where we can be able to learn from global best practices, you know.  Also, this event offers an opportunity for Nigeria to make, you know, its case to the international telecommunications audience, so that through this engagement, we can be able to move the investors that we need to continue to make the telecom sector more vibrant, more resilient as well as provide better, efficient and, you know, qualitative services. Thank you very much indeed. Thank you very much. I appreciate this engagement.


Satguruji, one of the most trending questions that we have here on campus is FOMO, the fear of missing out. We have the fear of missing out on activities, we have the fear of missing out on our placements, we have the fear of missing out on anything whatsoever under the roof. So, Satguruji, I have a question for you here, is when do we realize that it's the end? We have to stop this and this should not influence our decision making. I think a lot of our community would resonate to this question and we want your perspective on this, sir. See, fear of missing out, let's look at life little beyond. Your stay in the educational institution is only a transition. Only to equip yourself for something you have come. You have not come to an educational institution as a destination. It's a packaging place. So, package it nicely so that you can… you package pretty well today. Thank you, sir. So, not making a commentary on education, but how we go through it about missing out, the fear of missing out. First of all, fear, let's address fear before we address missing out. Fear is always about what may happen or may not happen, right? Fear is not about what is… what we are experiencing right now. What will happen is always the fear. Or in other words, your fear is about something which is not yet. Your fear is about something which does not exist. This is all management people. If there were a few somebody from a psychiatry department, you could have asked them. If I have fear about something that does not exist, what is my condition? They would have a title for you. Yes, Nemhants is close by, I think. We can always consult, that is also a premier institution. We are suffering something which doesn't even exist. Yes? If you're suffering something that doesn't even exist, it is not about life. It is not about education. It's not about career. It is just about your mind being out of control. Is that not an important aspect that you should manage first before we allow you to manage an industry or a business? Is it not important? First of all, you learn to at least manage your mind. Hello? Isn't it important?   Yes, today it's become normal, if you are a CEO by forty-five, if you don't have an ulcer, you are not a great CEO. Because you are managing by accident like this. The fear comes because there is an accidental possibility, isn't it? Tell me, let's say you don't know how to ride a bicycle. You sat on it, it was on stand, you were just peddling for fun and it came off stand and started rolling. Anxiety or no? Started rolling faster, fear or no? Very fast, terror or no? It's not because bicycle produces terror. It is just that you don't know how to ride. If you know how to ride, faster it goes the better it is, isn't it? Faster it goes the better it is, the very, very basis why we created a bicycle is because we wanted to go faster than walking. That's the idea. But if you do not know how to ride, how much fear it creates. Right now your problem is not with the world, your problem is not with your education.  They think you're going to manage the world without knowing how to manage yourself. When you are a mess, you can only create a mess, isn't it? You may be successful. Success happens for variety of reasons, you know? Success is not always hundred percent yours. There are situations, there are times which support us in many different ways. Of course your bit is there. But just because somebody is successful, this doesn't mean they've figured out everything. This doesn't mean they're at ease with life. This doesn't mean their life is in some way fulfilled. No, because today our idea of success is just doing little better than somebody else. You doing little better than somebody else means and you're very happy about that. What it means is you're actually enjoying other people's failures.  What do you call it? Hello? I enjoy that you failed. This is sickness. This is not success, isn't it? Unfortunately, this is how you're going. This is the reason why human potential is not unleashed. Because if you're racing with a lame person, you're just happy you're one step ahead of him.  Yes? Till then you think you are a great runner because other person doesn't have legs. So it's very important that there is nothing to miss out in life. Life is happening to all of us. Question is only, if I miss this party, am I missing out something? If I miss this examination, I am missing out something. If I miss this job, am I missing out something? This is simply because right now who you are is not internally managed. It is externally stimulated. You're still in a very controlled campus, a very beautiful campus. You have, I have to say, wonderful campus. And you're in a very controlled campus, atmosphere.  Here it's all managed for you. You're not managing this. It's managed for you. What should happen to you, what should not happen to you, somebody else is managing it. When you step out on the street, if you leave it to other people's hands, that they can decide whether you're happy or unhappy, you're going to be miserable for sure. Because they're going to do many things. What happens within you must be determined by you, isn't it? And anyway, why are you copying people?  This happened. Shankaran Pillai joined Pentagon. He was working in Pentagon. Then he kept moving his work table from one office to another office, another office to another office. He went on moving around. Then he moved to the corridor, he moved into the garden, he moved here, there. Then he moved into the men's restroom and settled down there and started working. Everybody was looking at this, what's wrong with him, some problem? Initially they thought he's a Russian agent. Then he thought he must be a Muslim terrorist. Then they thought all those things and everything ran out, he didn't cause any harm to anybody. Then he settled down in the men's restroom and started working. So they told the Pentagon psychiatrist that this guy's gone lonely, he's working in the men's room and he settled down and he's just doing his work there. So the psychiatrist just strolled in as if he wanted to use the men's room and started chatting. Then he found he was quite normal, everything was fine with him. He said, why are you sitting in the men's room and working? He said, I moved everywhere and saw, in the end I find this is the only damn place where people know what they are doing.


Greetings laddingtons. I am yet again checking in from the Forest of Enlightenment and today I thought to respond to a question that came up last time I talked about fasting and intermittent fasting and Since it's autumn Helios is blessed Sweden with some good old summer here in late August. So shout out to you Helios my man, but anyway autumn is incoming and a lot of guys will Start bulking. So I thought to bestow some bulking wisdom upon you all now first and foremost Should you do intermittent fasting when you are bulking if you are a bit skinnier? If you're a bit younger you want to bulk up put on some size then no I would not recommend doing Intermittent fasting because you want to space out your meals so that you can eat more the traditional Bodybuilding style of eating like six meals a day or so It's a bit Unnecessary in my view and also some wisdom when it comes to listening to pro bodybuilders They are taking vast amounts of steroids So if you listen to their advice and do like they do sure you can do it if you take the same sort of Dark side supplements so to speak but I recommend that you do not but anyway that being said I do recommend that you eat breakfast if you are a So-called hard gainer or if you're bulking etc because you do at the end of the day want to hit a certain amount of Calories for certain guys. It is hard to get to that level. So you're not doing yourself any favors by eating less simply put and of course in the Reversal if you're trying to lose weight It's absolutely unnecessary to eat breakfast in my view because most people aren't hungry in the morning anyway So yeah intermittent fasting. It's not something I would recommend if you are training To get get more massive or if you are at perhaps an elite level and you train several times a day And if you train in the morning, it might be good to load up with some extra carbohydrates And again as I've said before the more you train the more carbohydrates You should have in your diet the less you train the less carbohydrates in your diet So anyway, I still would though recommend that if you're a bulk bra if you have been bulking for Half a year or something. It can be a good idea for you to Do a 24-hour fast for your mind So not so much for your body, but for your mind which in turn as I always say is connected to the body So mind and body are one But anyway, you can do it every once in a while And then it can be good for you to get your appetite up again because if you've been bulking for half a year chances are quite high that you don't really Want to To eat so much so it can be a good idea. So basically to conclude for bulk bras not intermittent fasting, but if you are bulking you can do a 24-hour fast to reap the health benefits for the For the mind so to speak. So that is the answer to that question. I hope that Brought some insights to you And who am I? I'm jacked Legolas XXO boom


Scotland's Jimmy McCrae and Pauline Gullick have paced themselves well in the early stages of the silver fern. At this point, leading is not important, but McCrae, the celebrated British Rally Champion, is eager to stick in touch. It's been pretty good, we had a bit of a problem with sticking brake, brake pedals sticking in the first stage, but since then just been getting us bedding ourselves in for the next seven days. I've just got to be quicker tomorrow, that's all. McCrae's 1978 Escort is powered by a modern variant of the Ford Focus and is allowed under the rules to encourage and maintain classic cars with sometimes the better reliability of modern technology. Jimmy's skill behind the wheel has been even again today in the dust, but the Scotsman is praying for rain. I'd rather drive on a wet road than driving dust. At least on a wet road, in fact you've got better grip on a wet road than you have on dry dusty roads. When you come into a cloudy dust, you've got to slow down and just pick your road and see where you are, or you could end up, you might be thinking straight, but it might not be. We had a bit of a shower on the way in there and I thought, keep coming, keep coming. Modified Ford Escort is Brian Stokes, Cosworth engine, six-speed sequential gearbox and independent nine-inch rear axle, by far the biggest weapon in silver fern, but not without its own dramas. Stokes' race looks almost over as the sophisticated six-beaters on the ground with no fourth gear. The car will make the compulsory park firm a tonight in town without its gearbox. Rally rules allow the cars to be worked on for designated periods of time before and after special stages and touring. So long as they meet the clock and the times, there's no punting. So while the car is away, the team can fix or replace their gearbox, but cannot fit it to the car until released in the morning for the start of rallying.


So there is a long-standing argument over why you shouldn't use Linux and that argument is is that it's too complicated now I've talked about Linux being hard to install many times over the course of the life of this channel And I still stand by the fact that for brand new users people who are non-technical Linux is a little bit hard to install mostly because when you try to enter a boot menu and You try to tell someone how to enter a boot menu. I should say you can't tell them how Specifically for their computer because it's different on every single computer, you know It's either delete or f12 or sometimes it's escape sometimes. It's you know f2 Nobody knows right? It's for whatever reason computer manufacturers and motherboard manufacturers have chosen to make the boot menu just different on every single motherboard and Computer out there. So that's that that part of the Linux experience is still what I consider Hard and the reason why I'm using the air quotes is because it's not hard for Most people just the people who are non-technical when I've made this argument in the past A lot of people come back at me like Matt if people have made the choice to switch to Linux and know what Linux is chances are They are Technologically minded enough that they can do that and I think that that is a good response to that argument So let's just say that I've lost that argument and that Linux is mostly easy to install for the people who are Interested in installing it. So once you've moved past insulation part of you know, the Linux experience is Linux too complicated That's the question that I have to ask today And I think that if you were to make the argument of Linux being overly complicated 10 years ago Five years ago, maybe but definitely 10 years ago I think that you'd have some room to play because definitely 10 15 years ago Linux was more complicated Audio often didn't work all the time on all hardware Wi-Fi cards Really didn't work hardly at all unless you had the exact one that won't work with Linux Things like file sharing was way worse 15 years ago a whole bunch of things were just worse 15 10 15 years ago because the technology just hadn't been developed yet the software wasn't where it is today So if you were making that argument back in, you know, 2008 2005 something like that Sure, Linux was definitely more complicated in that era The question is does that argument still hold weight today? And I don't think that it does even if you are a longtime Windows user and you have Developed muscle memory for the Windows UI You can come to Linux and not have a hard time at all adapting to the overall experience mainly because the vast majority of Desktop environments, which is probably what you're going to start out on they all use Somewhat similar Experiences to Windows, you know, there's a bar along the bottom maybe along the top But usually along the bottom There's a menu that has all your applications in it on the other side There's a system tray and some icons and stuff. It looks like a Windows experience now Obviously there are exceptions the GNOME experience is way different and you can Argue with me later over whether or not that's a good or bad thing but the idea is is that usually when you hop into a New user friendly distribution whether it's Linux Mint or, you know, Kaboom 2 or Katie Neon or something like that any of the mainstream Really any Linux distribution outside of like gentoo or arch or Linux or scratch or something like that You're going to experience some kind of desktop environment that mimics in some ways the way Windows works It's just kind of the paradigm we as a species have settled on and that Similarity even though there are going to be differences or it's going to make you more comfortable almost immediately Now this argument could have also applied 15 years ago because a lot of the experiences when it comes to desktop environments applied back then as well some of it even more so because GNOME 2 was around and that was more of a Windows-like experience with menus all over the place and stuff like that But I feel over the course of the last few years the experience when it comes to desktop environments has cleaned itself up and become more Professional and I don't know if professionals the right word but more polished and that polish has led it to feel in Some ways more like Windows but also not necessarily more like Windows but more of a Cohesive experience that people are familiar with and comfortable with even if it's not exactly like Windows is and I think that that has decreased the complexity people face once they have Linux installed So if we take that argument out of the whole thing people being confused by the UI the next thing you have to talk about is software and Alternative software and this is where things get a little bit more murky because obviously when you switch to anything new you're going to have to Find alternatives to the things that you used to use. It's not always true in every Sphere of life, but specifically when it comes to software you're if you're gonna switch to something new in the software sphere You're gonna have to learn it whether that's finding alternatives or learning something new whatever So when you switch to Linux, that's definitely a process that can be complicated But I don't think in this day and age It's overly complicated and if you've managed to jump the hurdle of downloading an ISO Putting it on a USB key finding your way through the boot menu nonsense Installing your Linux distribution getting your user created all this stuff You've you've managed to get that far to the point where you can start making software selections You've probably somewhere along the line learn how to use a search engine. I'm just assuming and these days and hell even five years ago, but definitely these days There are any number of blog posts out there telling you great alternatives to the popular software So if you want to find alternatives to Photoshop, you've wanted to find alternatives to premiere or Whatever and basically everything that you use on Windows. There's some kind of alternatives now You can argue over whether or not the alternatives are as good as the stuff on Windows That's an argument for another day, but we have alternatives and they're very very easy to find add on top of that software centers Have become way better than they were five or ten years ago ten years ago They probably didn't even exist on Linux or if they did they were in such Early stages that they weren't very good like discovered was pretty bad up until just a few years ago Now it's really really good Good um software depending on where you're using it whether it's the snap store or on fedora Which is the get home software center? Whatever is a very good app store for people to go to to find software And you know it has descriptions and screenshots and all this stuff and if people want to find alternatives to their software They just go to the app store, which they're used to doing on their previous platforms probably You know, it's just easier to find software today than it ever has been now Somebody is going to argue. Well, yeah, Matt There's a whole bunch of different file formats and or package formats out there and that's really overly confusing and yeah I can you can argue that the whole flat packs versus snaps versus native packaging that can be very complicated But the vast majority of people don't know or don't care those things exist until they want to right until they go searching out that information They'd probably have never even realized what they're installing because the if you're a brand new user You're not gonna care about any of that stuff But instead you're going to and go to your software center and just download whatever they offer and you know You'll use the software. You won't even know that you've downloaded a snap or downloaded a flat pack That's the vast majority of new users now once you become more Technology-minded and you've decided you're gonna start tweaking with Linux a little bit more You know, maybe then you'll start learning some of the jargon and start learning with the differences between these package formats are and stuff like that Obviously the more deep into the technology you get when it comes to Linux the more complicated It's going to be but that's not any different than it is with Windows or Mac OS The more you delve deep into those operating systems the more complicated it's going to get It's just the way of software from vast majority of new users You're just going to If you are a new user and you're just wanting to use a web browser and a few pieces of software And that's all you want to do. You're never going to dive deep So those alternative packaging formats are never going to matter to you So I don't think that that is a good argument, you know making Linux more complicated So overall the question then for me or the answer to the question of whether or not Linux is too complicated these days Is just absolutely not if you get past installation, which I agree I think most people who are interested in installing Linux can do I don't think that you can argue that it is too complicated and I think that that is a good thing I think that for the longest time Linux had a reputation for being for developers only and it is Finally coming to a point where it can shed that reputation because it is so Fairly easy to install but also really easy to use for the most part now obviously again You can make it more complicated, but if you're just going to use it like a normie you're gonna have a good experience it's not gonna be overly complicated and I think that that is a wonderful thing because The easier it is for new users to use the more people will use Linux and the more people use Linux is You know makes the world a better place So that is it for this video if you have comments on this argument You can leave those in the comment section below and love to hear from you You can follow me on massive honor odyssey those links will be in the video description You can support me on patreon at patreon.com Slash the link cast links for liberapay and YouTube will be in the video description as well If you'd like to support me there Thanks, everybody who does support me on patreon YouTube you guys are all absolutely amazing without you the channels We're not being anywhere near where it is right now. So thank you so very much for your support I truly do appreciate it. You guys are all Absolutely amazing seriously. Thank you very much. Thanks everybody for watching. I'll see you next time