The rebellious nature has been crucified with Christ, but it seems that the rebellious nature often tries for a resurrection. We surrender things to God and then try to take control of them again. We place things in His hands and then try to take hold of them for ourselves again. We put things on the altar and then try to pull them off. We tend to forget that God is the potter and that we are the clay. What sorrow awaits those who argue with their Creator? Does the clay pot argue with its maker? Does the clay dispute with the one who shapes it saying, stop, you're doing it wrong? Does the pot exclaim, how clumsy can you be? That's Isaiah 45-9. This is why we so desperately need the help of the Holy Spirit. It's only through the Holy Spirit that we can truly learn to surrender. Let God break your will and mold His. Let God reshape your thinking to be like His.  Don't fight Him. Realize that God's vision for your life will often contradict your vision for your life. But considering the fact that you surrendered your life to Him when you got saved, can you truly say any more that it's your life? Don't fight the process. Don't resist the movement of the potter's hand. Let Him break what needs to be broken. Let Him remove what needs to be removed. Let His desire take shape in your life. Indeed, we are just the clay. He is the potter. I'm David Diga Hernandez and that is your moment of truth.


We've got a Wiley Washington commander coming up offensive linemen on the program. Look at these graphics. What's going on Andrew? Wiley They're getting iced shout out to Smirnoff. I don't know those look like Smirnoff ices though. Who knows? I got our next guest doesn't even know what he was drinking in this Me doesn't seem like it. He spent the last five seasons playing on the O line for the Kansas City Chiefs He's fresh off dominating the Philadelphia Eagles to win. This is amazing his second Super Bowl And he just inked a three-year contract with the Washington commanders, please welcome Andrew Wiley to the show Andrew. Hi Hey, how we doing guys? Amazing and I will say that my producer in my ear right before we came back from commercials said he's in a really good mood And I'm like you think Because he just yeah, he just got paid he's got a whole new energy about him But you also just won two Super Bowls. How good is life for you right now? Yeah, it's great. It's you know, it's been a great season leading up to the offseason.  Are you really starting to work out again? I wouldn't work out into the ring ceremony Once I get the second ring then I'll start working out. Yeah, no doubt. It was it was only my second workout though So it's not like I've been going too crazy yet That's what I like. How does it compare to the first one? You're in this rare truly like truly rare company of somebody who's gone to the pinnacle of the sport the greatest to ever do it the greatest Twice, how does it compare to that first one? You know, this one means a little bit more to me personally, you know playing every game this year getting all those starts and then You know continue in the run-through playoffs all the way up to the Super Bowl and then actually get into get out there and compete myself So this one truly means the world to me personally it carries a little more weight but But you know, it's just be a two-time world champion. There's nothing better It's so true two rings here and you know when you talk about it meaning a little bit more to you You were the only guy unless you can tell me differently. I think you're the only guy on that O-line That was the holdover from when you guys lost to the Bucks in Super Bowl 55 not to bring that up Sorry, so I imagine this one has to be super special to you You personally dominating in the AFC championship went over the Bengals and then in the Super Bowl Like how does it feel coming off a loss knowing what that's like? Yeah, you know, it took a lot to you know to get that get that stink off the shoulder, you know So, you know, we we carried that ship For a long time. There there was there was a few of us that were there just a couple a couple of the guys but From that from that loss and that Super Bowl, but but I was the only one out there on plan, but Um, yeah, it's it's truly special.  It's hard to come off of that It's how you're saying it took a lot of work.    So, um, you know worked out for us You spent so much time in Kansas City I I bet it was Very bittersweet having to leave, of course You were in two Super Bowl championships there and your story and journey there in itself is great Right, you go from practice squad practice squad to starter to Super Bowl champion So how would you say you grew as a player and maybe even as a person during that time in Kansas City?  So, you know, just just an incredible group of guys Um and coaching staff really really helped propel my career And you're such a professional Super Bowl parade champion We saw that video coming in if we can even roll it again What advice would you give like let's say the commanders When the Super Bowl this year and you're giving advice to guys and like how to handle this in this mean streets of DC What's the advice you would give and maybe pacing yourself or just that piece of advice to give to the future Super Bowl champions Pacing yourself is incredibly important Uh, um, I would say just like that, man Just like that video get out, um, you can get active with the crowd, man I love nothing more than to interact with the fans, especially, um, you know And some of the some of the highest points of of my life And so, you know, the fans toughen it out with you all season All those games showing up being loud supporting And, uh, you know, it's truly something to just get out there in the streets and and have a drink with a fan, man It is it's truly, uh, you know, it's an incredible experience. One of the happiest days I've ever had What's the best moment of winning a Super Bowl so now you've had two so now I'm just I'm really thinking about this Because to me the parade Is sort of the underrated part because it's like not on the field But it's you've you've granted you haven't slept in days I'm sure but you must feel like An absolute superhero like a superhero out there in front of all these people and that must be so rewarding and validating and just fun From from the moment you realize that you win a Super Bowl to maybe The the day that the season starts that next year or next season What is the single moment that is that feels the actual best? Um I don't so my personal favorite is, you know, just getting my family done on the field when the confetti's falling That's something that constantly plays in my head Um, I don't think the actual weight of what happened. Uh, it has hit yet Um during that point, um, but it is just truly something special to to be there on the field See mom pops and uh, you know, just see the confetti falling with them, you know, everyone's crying having a great time Um, but it's just that feeling is really something special and uh, you know, I'll remember that forever Wait, so when does it hit you? Um I would say it hits, um Once we you know, once we always get back to the city and you know, it usually hits when I go out You know, usually go out for dinner on the town or something and it's just The town is just has a different sort of energy about it.  Uh, my producer's telling me we have a funny tweet. He wants to show you I don't know if I trust that it'll actually be funny, but here it is. Oh, this is from you Anyway, who's showing up to this parade tomorrow? I'm trying to chucks and beers with y'all Yeah Yep, yep, and that's what I did and uh, like I said, there's there's just nothing better than getting out with the fans Who have been riding with you for so long Um, such an incredibly long season And uh, and you know and the fans they're they're there through it all to go on going through it with you So, you know, it's truly some to to have that level of interaction. Um, it's very rare So, you know, I enjoy every minute of it every ounce of it Your smile Andrew your smile says it all and I'm so happy for you. Stop working out. You can say that. I'm sure Ron were variable He won't see this like just live your life. Have your live your best time It's so crazy that you talk about Superbowls like, yeah, you know, you go back to the city and like you it's happened to you Twice it's so incredible And we want to talk about the commanders and how you're going to bring that Superbowl mentality To this new city that so desperately needs that sort of invigoration But before we do that, you got to talk me through this play. Okay talk to me Just I'm gonna show you some video here. What were you thinking when you practice this for the first time? Man, I was thinking about how I'm gonna ice the game and win the Superbowl for my team That's all I was thinking Man, I wish I You know really wish I could have got open and and made that play go this one, um, this one against the Raiders though, we uh, we had a little razzle dazzle going a little uh Little snow globe and uh, but you know, that's just this song we dial up when we're having fun You know when we were having fun and walkthroughs on saturdays just Just having fun and and pats usually dialing up something and then you know eb got a hold of it He really likes it and so, you know, then coach reads like we'll screw it man. Put it in the playbook Let's let's get it dialed up and uh, that's the natural progression but Uh, you know in the Superbowl, you know, I really thought I really thought I was going to come down with a touchdown and You know, I'm sorry to the sorry to the guys. I couldn't make it happen. I couldn't get out playing on my release. That's my bad Um, but yeah, so I was I was thinking all glory when that play got called. Yeah, exactly we're not even bringing that up, but uh You're saying we just dialed it up and we're having we do it when we're having fun Andrew that is so disrespectful Like it's so disrespectful to the Raiders No, it was uh, so that play, you know, it's not like it was it was, you know A play for the Raiders, you know that the play like that needs to be in the playbook for about a month Before you can even think about uh putting it up for the week.  I was a little surprised Uh, and it worked. So, you know, that's all she wrote You're like, I got a job to do here. I am ring around the posse. It's out Right around the rosy. It sounds good. Okay. You're wearing the washington commander shirt, which I I love And kansas city loves you and they will always love you because you are a legend a two-time super bowl champion And now you're with a new squad a new head coach in ron revera But a very familiar guy and eric b enemy the oc there What was free agency like for you and what ultimately led to your decision and really what did eric play enough?  Um, you know, the money dries up pretty quick And so I ended up just signing a one year deal last year, but you know, this free agency was a little different I was uh, you know me and my agent kind of went back and forth and you know, we thought we were going to get something done in the second week Um, but then he shows up at my spot here on the first day on monday with uh, with a few offers And so that was that was really cool to be a part of and then the fact that You know dc came in came in with a little bag there.  He really, um, you know fought for us and got it done And now I'm just I'm so stoked to get in that building. Um, I had some really great interactions with with the head coach raveira And obviously eb and I just mean me and all the guys around that building. So Um, I had a great day there great signing and I'm just so excited to get down there for otas and get after a little bit What do you know that the enemy will bring into the table? He's sort of the synigma I think everyone wants him to be a head coach thinks he could do the job as a head coach It hasn't happened for him. He takes this job under ron raveira What is the maybe like the most important quality of his coaching style or him as a man that he will bring into that building Yeah, he's just he has this commanding energy about him. Uh, he truly takes control of the room Uh, he commands respect. Uh, when he talks, uh, he's very intense.  It's uh, it's it's pretty inspiring. So I love that.    Oh his resume I love it. I feel like you're gonna help do that. Where are you playing? You play all over the line You're super versatile if you could pick or do you have any idea where they're going to put you or where you want to be? Um, you know, that's all up all up to the higher ups. Uh, honestly, I'll do whatever they ask of me You know, I just I truly enjoy the offensive line position as a whole. Um, you know, I got experience I pretty much everything but center. So, you know, if they uh, if they leave me out of the center talks That won't be bad, but anything else is is all good Andrew, this is why you got that bag that you're talking about because you were the perfect employee You were the perfect teammate you're gassing up your oc.  You'll play and do whatever they want You to it's amazing. Uh, and I love it. Now. I also I heard, uh, I I Am am friendly with Michael Rubin and he's really into these cards and this, you know He he's taking over the mint condition card vibes and games or whatever collectibles You're really big into that and I'm just learning about it You uh, you as I understand have a mint condition Lebron James rookie card, which is that true? Oh, yeah, yep Okay Where is it in your house? Is it more valuable to you than your Super Bowl ring like where do you hold it when in terms of like your importance of prized possessions? Um, that is it's my most prized card. It's not my most valuable. I don't think but you know, there's a little story behind it Um quick one, you know me and my dad we started collecting cards Uh, you know and I was living at home young age and and he actually picked that up You know a few years after you know Lebron's rookie year for you know, 25 bucks And then just sat sat in the safe or sat in a drawer or whatever For for about 20, you know 15 20 years or whatever and so I finally got back into cards a few years ago And I was like dang this thing's pretty nice and we set it in and it got a got a perfect grade on it So, um, that's kind of just a cool story about you know, the first time when I started collecting all the way to now Um, but I feel I feel like the Super Bowl stuff would be be a little a little bit about that Yeah, it's a good answer. But I mean is this card I would say this card is worth like 500 bucks What is it is it worth much more than that?  Um, you know, and the thing with the card market It's always up and down. So it's really hard to put a put a number on it Especially it's not that's something I would never personally sell but um, yeah, it's it's a little more than 500 dollars But nothing too crazy Okay, I just mean something to personally which I let okay I know you're a big and thank you for teaching me that You're a big video game guy as well. So I'm sure you know, everybody's all the rage is the last of us And that's on you know on on tv now or streaming or whatever So we're gonna play a game based off the hbo series and video game It's called the last of you's the last thing we're doing and it's a rapid fire style questions Was it kind of like the last time you did something or the last thing you've done Okay, who was the last teammate that you who you texted? former current Former I would say it was it was my guy michael schwarz. I gave him a text yesterday.  Last night and this is an all-timer. It's probably my top five is swat You ever see that movie it's always on effect now And you got to fight through the commercials because it was just on tv But that that's an all-timer right there every time it's on tv. I'll put it on You're sitting there watching swat on regular tv with commercials andrew wiley that is the best thing i've ever heard When is the last time you bought a pair? When's the last time you bought a pair of shoes?  You know, I got the fit now.  I like it. When is what is the last chain restaurant you ate at? You know, there's one down the street here in florida called charlie's. I think it's a chain But it's a nice fake house. Yep. Had a had a nice steak and a glass of wine. So yeah I don't I could have another word at the end of it. Yeah, I think it's a chain I think it's a chain That counts. Oh charlie hula hands. It's all the same. Okay. When's the last time you bought something that you were like Oh my gosh, why did I buy this? I spent too much money on this you had buyers remorse. When's the last time? Oh, that's tough Because you know, I like I like getting out there shopping But I would probably say, you know, when we were in arizona for the super bowl They had some very nice shopping centers around there and I probably bought bought a hoodie at a store that I didn't need to Um, but you know, it's gonna look good, but I probably won't wear it over 10 times one of those things Andrew wiley likes shopping spent his super bowl week shopping in arizona, which I love And he's the one who watches swat. I was always wondering who watches swat and here he is Andrew wiley. Good luck in washington Congratulations on the bag Which means you never have to have buyers remorse and all bless things and just good vibes to you going forward. Good luck Thank you. Thank you guys so much. I appreciate it. Yeah, we appreciate you and congratulations two times super bowl champion Andrew wiley will be back after this john rostin What happened to purdue? This is march


War, call it what we might, but war is the most complex of human endeavors. I've thought a lot about the use of the military instrument of power, and in particular whether it's more appropriate to be cautious or aggressive with it. When I talk about making strategy in public, it's the recognition that the decisions we make are immediately visible and evident to large numbers of people, and not just at home, but across the globe. That could take you in one of two directions. You could either become more aggressive or you can become more cautious about that. I will leave it to historians to decide whether we've become more aggressive or more cautious in the face of this proliferation of awareness and information. When I talk to our elected officials, I talk about options and I talk about whether we're in a period that requires either a bias for action or a bias for inaction, but what we can allow this proliferation of information to do is generate an almost insatiable appetite for more information and more options, which can actually paralyze the system. That's the risk we run, is that you begin to believe that if you just wait a little longer, you'll even have more information and more information is better information, and it becomes kind of a cycle that is tough to break. When conflict starts out of either fear or honor, and in the case of current conflicts of certain of religion, the ability to manage those conflicts becomes much more difficult, much more challenging. So, caution is not a pejorative in my view in the application of force. On the other hand, I mentioned a little earlier that the use of the military instrument is different whether you're dealing with a nation state or a peer competitor or a non or sub state group. My point is this, if you have a universal bias for inaction, that can become problematic. I think you have to balance, given the threat, given the other pressures on the system, in our case, given the other commitments we have, I think you have to be very judicious in balancing your tendency to go into action and your tendency to wait and see if other opportunities present themselves.


Alright guys, I'm gonna hit you up with a very unpopular opinion right now.  This is the introduction song. It's not very good, but it's not too long. Now, just keep in mind, when I say A Feast for Crows is the worst book, I don't mean it's a bad book. I think it's actually decent. You know, I'd say it's better than okay, not quite good. But it's a decent read. You know, it goes by relatively quickly. There's still some fun stuff in there, but pretty much everyone who is a fan of this series is in agreement that, yeah, this one is the worst. And for just a couple of minutes here, I just wanted to talk about why exactly we feel that way as well as my own take on it, and basically just what it does wrong that the other books did right. Also, I just want to point out that there will be spoilers for this whole series as well as up through some minor spoilers for season 5 of the show. So if that thing bothers you, then please be aware of that. I think I forgot to give a spoiler warning in my last Top 10 Game of Thrones things. I'm sorry about that. So it's kind of impossible to talk about A Feast for Crows without mentioning A Dance with Dragons, which is the next book in the series. This one was supposed to be combined with Dance with Dragons. It was supposed to only be one book at the beginning. But George R.R. Martin just decided, okay, we'll just have to split it in two because there's too much story. And granted, this one is extremely long. It's 976 pages, is this copy? And my copy of A Dance with Dragons is a similar length. So at first it seems reasonable that he'd want to split it up like that. But then you look through it and you realize that a lot of the stuff in this one, not so much in A Dance with Dragons, but in this one, a lot of the stuff there is just really boring. Because the thing is, you know, this series, it follows multiple characters that are in various places and doing various things, and the timeline is kind of vague, but it is generally understood that it's happening more or less simultaneously. So this one takes place at the same time as A Dance with Dragons, but for the most part, these are the boring characters that no one really cares about. The War of Five Kings is pretty much over. Yeah, I threw the book over there in between takes, don't worry about it. But the War of Five Kings is pretty much over by this point.  So now that plot line is wrapped up and you'd think, okay, well, Cersei and Tommen are now in control of the Seven Kingdoms. But the thing is, a pretty substantial chunk of this book is Cersei being the Queen Regent and trying to, you know, consolidate power, get things back under control, and just being really bad at it. And I mean, that would have been fine if there were just a couple chapters devoted to it, but it takes up a huge, huge portion of this book. And well, quite frankly, it's both boring and annoying. It's kind of neat to get a little more insight into Cersei and how she operates and, you know, finding out about the prophecy that she got when she was a kid and yet learning a little more about that. That's okay, that's fine.  Like, it makes all the heroes, all the people that she's killed over the years, it makes them just seem a lot stupider and a lot... No, that's it. It makes them seem a lot stupider. And there's also no following of Tyrion's story after he left King's Landing or of Jon's story up at the Wall. And I mean, that's more of a personal preference thing because to me, those two are my favorite characters, my favorite POV characters. But I mean, a lot of other people are bothered by that too. And taking two of your most popular characters and just leaving them out of a book altogether, that's gonna upset some people, you know? Like, maybe it seems a little inconsequential on the surface, but it really is just disappointing, I guess. And then we've got Brienne's storyline, which is mostly just her going on a wild goose chase. Because, I mean, in the last book, The Storm of Swords, it was her taking Jaime to King's Landing in order to try and exchange him. And then she was gonna try and find Arya and Sansa and bring them back to Lady Catlin. But in this one, she's just looking for Arya and Sansa, but the thing is, we as readers know that she's looking in the wrong places and that she's not gonna find them doing what she's doing. And so it just feels completely pointless. And, again, I get that from her character perspective. It doesn't seem that way. She's like actually investigating and she's like, oh, okay, this is a lead, let's go look for it. But from our perspective, it's stupid, okay? I mean, maybe it's building up to something because we see her again briefly in A Dance with Dragons, but, I mean, just, it's just dull. It makes that character again seem like an idiot, because Brienne is one of the more heroic characters in this.   And then we also have the storylines at the Citadel and at Dorne. And the thing is, the Citadel one doesn't take up that much time, but it's not very interesting to me. Okay, the only thing that I thought was kind of interesting is when it's talking about how the Maesters might have helped kill dragons to get rid of magic altogether. I thought that was kind of cool, but that's also a very brief moment. And the Dorne storyline, I just hated the Dorne storyline. I really did. What is the point? There was no real build-up of Dorne or how it would be important before this. And really, this sort of ties into how this book is where the lack of focus begins. Like, that was one of the biggest problems that I've had with this series is that as it goes on, there's less and less focus. Because the show, for all its flaws, it is narrowing the scope down in the past couple of seasons. It has taken this broad, huge, expansive story, and it has tied up some of the plotlines, and it's now pulling everything together towards one final confrontation. And in the books, it does the opposite. Like, after the War of Five Kings ends, and basically where Feast for Crows begins, it instead of narrowing things down and working towards, okay, what is the final confrontation going to be? Is it going to be with the others? Is it going to be with Daenerys coming over trying to take over? Instead, it's expanding it even more. Like, it has Daenerys trying to consolidate her control over Slaver's Bay and not doing great with it. It has all that stuff with Cersei that I talked about. It doesn't really talk about the wall in this one, but it just, there's so much stuff in Dorne, obviously. I can't believe I forgot that already. And it introduces Dorne. It introduces all these new people and it introduces what their plans are. And just, there's so much stuff here that we just, I didn't care about. I really just could not bring myself to really care that much about Dorne. And again, for a lot of people complaining about how the show butchered the Dorne storyline, really what they did was just cut it out, cut a lot of it out. And I prefer that by a lot. Because for all its flaws, again, at least the show has this scene. But was there what? There was a woman more beautiful than I am. Was there? I like that scene. It's pretty good. There's a lot of character development and plot in that scene. I would go so far as to say that around 40 to 50% of this book could have been cut out altogether. And a lot of the remaining stuff could have been trimmed. Like, A Dance with Dragons has a little bit of a filler problem as well. There's a lot of stuff there that could be cut down, that could be trimmed, that could be pulled out. But really at the end of the day, I feel as though these could have been one book. These could have remained as one storyline. And well, that's... Yeah, that's it. Of course, in the name of fairness, I do want to talk about some of the good stuff in this book because, like I said, it's really not that terrible. I did enjoy most of Jamie's chapters because, essentially, he's going through a personal crisis when this starts. Like, we see it from the outside in a storm of swords. Well, no, we see it from the inside a little bit too. But anyways, he's going through a personal crisis and realizing that, you know what, I am a bad person. And he's sort of known that for a while, but now is when he's starting to try and actually become a better person.   And even though I love her, which in a way that I shouldn't love her, I think I need to move away from her in order to better myself. And I think that that arc that he goes through is pretty great. That is one area that I will say that these books did better than the show, actually, because the show kind of stretches it out over a longer period, so it's not quite as impactful I didn't feel. I liked the stuff with Sansa in there because Sansa...   So I'm not saying she's not well within her rights to be whiny. She is. But it is nice in this one to see her becoming a little more intelligent, a little more politically savvy, and picking up on schemes and actually helping to manipulate people and stuff. I did enjoy that. So her chapters were... even if they weren't like in the middle of all the politics of King's Landing, they were still pretty enjoyable. And of course, Aria's chapters are pretty great. Like, there's not that many of them, but watching her go across the world and training to become this magical assassin, it's... I mean, it's pretty great. Like, yeah, I would say this is... this and the show did this about as well as one another. I should probably stop comparing this to the show because this is more about the book. But anyways, the point is, like, I thought that that storyline is really good. It's not over yet in the books, and I am disappointed that it wasn't expanded upon into Dance with Dragons, because I feel like, you know, if they only had a couple of chapters of it in here, they could just have a couple in there, but whatever, at the end of the day, it is cool to see Aria becoming... growing up, we'll say. Well, she's just growing up, she's becoming more self-sufficient, that sort of thing. So that's about all I have to say about this. I mean, I think overall, again, this book is not terrible. It reads pretty quickly, you can breeze through it relatively easily, and there are still some good moments and some good characters in there, but at the end of the day, it does not continue the story in a satisfying way, and it doesn't conclude anything either. Where the story should be narrowed, it expands upon it, and... Well, no, that's the biggest thing really. It's expanding when it should be moving towards something bigger instead. I actually meant to say better. Wait, not bigger. It's expanding when it should be narrowing towards something better. It should be combining things and finishing things out. That's a better way of putting it. So be sure to comment and subscribe and all that stuff that I'm supposed to say here, and thanks to all my patrons, I'll put their names up. Ooh, yeah, you guys are the best. You really are. You should check out my page and stuff, and that's it. I'll see you for the rest of a song of Ice and Fire Month. Bye.


Let me focus on the question at hand, which is the question of the morality of capitalism. And what way is capitalism model? Is it at all model? But first let's ask the question of, what do we mean by morality? What is it that we mean? When we talk about morality of a system, morality of a socio-political economic system. I don't view capitalism, by the way, just now only as just economic. I think it's broader than that. I think it's an entire political-social system. And I'll define what I mean by capitalism in a minute. But before we get to that, we need to talk about what is morality because I have a different conception of morality than many people out there. I believe that when judging a social, political, economic system, there's only one standard that should apply. And that is the extent to which that political system enables human flourishing. So to me, morality is the ability of individuals to flourish, to succeed, to live a good life, to live a life of where they can pursue their happiness, where they can pursue their values, based on their own judgment. So not based on some authoritarian telling them what they can and cannot do, not based on some dogma that says that they have to live a particular way, but what is moral is a system, is a system that leaves individuals free to make choices about their life, to choose the values they pursue, and then to leave them free to actually pursue those values and hopefully attain them. No system can guarantee happiness, no system can guarantee flourishing. The best we can hope for is a system that leaves you as an individual, free to try, to pursue, to achieve the best life that you can live, because that to me is what morality is about, achieving the best life you can live. We only have one life, as far as I know, one life, you gotta live it, you gotta make the most of it. And when it comes to politics, when it comes to society, when it comes to a political system, we want a political system that gives us that opportunity to go for it, to try to live the best life that we can live. That's my standard for what is moral. It's not to impose a particular way of life on anybody, but it's to give them the freedom to make the choices about the way of life they want to live. And by that standard, and I'm open to being challenged on that standard, and I'm sure some of you will, but on that standard, there is only one moral political system, only one, and that is the system of capitalism. So what is capitalism? What we have today is not capitalism. There is no capitalism today in the world. Capitalism is a system in which the government is such that all it does, its sole responsibility, its only job is to protect our freedom, to protect our ability to make choices. It's to protect our freedom to act, to act in this world, to act in pursuit of our values. Government has no other role under capitalism. So in capitalism, the government, for example, has no economic responsibility, does not intervene in the economy, at all. So it does not regulate, it does not control, it does not centrally plan, it does not tell you what you can and cannot do, it does not tell you how you should or shouldn't live. The whole point of capitalism is that it leaves you free, free to make your own choices, free to make your own decisions, free to live your life as you see fit. It doesn't try to dictate your life for you, whether in your personal realm, or in your economic realm. Capitalism is a system that recognizes that each one of us, each one of us as an individual has inalienable rights. Rights mean freedoms of action. Each one of us should be free, should be free to take whatever actions one wants, good actions, bad actions, whatever actions you want, free of coercion, free of force, free of authority, free of somebody compelling you to behave in a particular way to do a particular thing, to act in pursuit of anything in particular. The role of government and capitalism is to protect that freedom. In other words, to leave you alone, protect you from your neighbor, protect you from cooks and thieves and fraudsters, protect you from foreign invasion, arbitrate disputes so that we don't have duels in the streets.  Capitalism is inconsistent with the platonic view of philosopher kings who know what's good for you and are gonna dictate to you what's right and what's wrong and how you should live. We abandoned that view of society a long time ago, but we still dabble it. We still live today in what I would call a mixed economy, what many call a mixed economy. We have some freedoms for the most part, where you can do what you want.  You can say what you want in most countries sometimes. You can sleep with whoever you want in most countries sometimes, not everywhere. You can live your life as you see fit. You know, for most things, you can even start your own business if you get the right permissions and if you ask nicely and in some places if you pay off the right people and you can usually employ who you want.  So we have limited freedoms. We have some freedoms. Some countries a little bit more, some countries a little bit less, but in every country, we have governments that intervene in almost every aspect of our life in one way or another. We are not free. Our income is, big chunk of our income is taken away from us. We are controlled and regulated in our business lives. You are controlled and regulated in every aspect of our economic life.  We don't have the choices. We don't have the ability to act free of coercion, free of force, free of authority. We live in a world in which authority tells us what to do all the time. So I believe we should reject any model where we institute before us philosopher kings to tell us how to live and what we can or cannot do. You know, we don't call them philosopher kings anymore. We call them bureaucrats, regulators, politicians, but that's what they are. They know better how you should behave. They know better how much you should earn. They know better what you should or shouldn't produce. That to me is them all. It's none of your business, leave me alone. That to me is the right ethical approach to living, to trading, to interact. So I think capitalism on a theoretical level is the only system that is moral because it's the only system that leaves individuals free to pursue their own values, to live their own life based on their own standards, based on their own minds without coercion. We live in mixed economies that coerce us constantly. But let's, what about capitalism in practice? How is it done in practice in reality? Now first, let me say, and I know the left says exactly the same thing I'm gonna say, but I'm gonna make the contrast, that there really never has been capitalism as I just defined it. There's never been a complete separation of state from economics. Now the communists say the same thing, of course. There's never been real capitalism, there's never been real communism. We need to try it next time it'll get a work, next time we'll get it right. And this is the difference. The difference is that to the extent that you try socialism, certainly to the extent that you try communism, it is by the standard of human flourishing an unmitigated disaster. It leads to nothing but death and starvation. Everywhere it's tried, everywhere it fails.  Maybe not death on a kibbutz, but destruction certainly. Capitalism is the opposite. To the extent that capitalism is tried by the standards of human wellbeing, to that extent it succeeds. To that extent people are better off. People are wealthier. People have more options. People have more choices. People have more wealth. People thrive. Capitalism is a system that is being dabbled with for 250 years. And everywhere, no matter what, place in the world that is tried even a little bit, it has unbelievably good outcomes in spite of the anti-capitalist propaganda that you hear.  We look at the history of mankind over the last 100,000 years, what you see is extreme poverty lived by well over 90% of all the population everywhere in the world. So for 100,000 years, basically income and wealth were flat. They didn't alter. They didn't change.  How long did people live back then? Anybody know what's the average life expectancy? Yeah, it was well under 40, right? And then something miraculous happened because at some point just on a scale of income, wealth, but also life expectancy, suddenly everything went up dramatically, not a little bit, not a little Greece or Rome, but suddenly everything exploded so that today in France, your income and wealth are well over, on average, well over 300 times what they were 300 years ago, 300 times. But in real, in terms of quality of life, the quality of your life is thousands of times better than it was 300 years ago. How do you value, you can't value monetarily the value of having running water and toilets. How do you value electricity? In economics, we can only measure dollars, or francs, or euros, but in terms of quality of life, our life is much better than we can measure it in terms of in those terms. We have today the kind of wealth that nobody 300 years ago could have even imagined.  By any standard of wealth, income, your life expectancy is probably over a hundred. Mine is probably less, yours is probably well over a hundred. And if the right scientific breakthroughs happen, it could be a lot over a hundred. And there's no limit to the wealth, to the success you can have. What happened to lead to this inflection point of exponential growth in every measure of human wellbeing? What happened? Did anybody know how many people were in extreme poverty 300 years ago globally? What percentage of the world population was extremely poor? The UN defines extreme poverty as $2 a day or less. How many people were extremely poor 300 years ago? Yeah, over 95%. How many people are extremely poor today? In the world, not in France, but in the world. Globally, anybody know? Yes, it's like an important number, right? 20%, anybody else? More than that, less than that? 10%, what's that? Think Africa, think Asia, think the whole world. It's 8%. We went from 95% to 8%. 40 years ago, 30, 40 years ago, it was 30%. In the last 40 years, the greatest advancement human beings have ever seen in terms of the defeat of poverty has happened and you don't even know about it. We've gone from 30%, 40% of poverty, extreme poverty, to 8%, we should be celebrating in the streets. Nobody celebrates, it's a good question as to why. How did that happen? How did it happen that over the last 300 years, poverty has basically almost completely been defeated? And if you project another 50 years, it will be, there will be no poverty in the world. Now, what had created that inflection point about 200 and something years ago? Well, the ideas, ideas created that inflection point. And those are the ideas, the same ideas that are fundamentally behind the system of capitalism. 300 years ago, or really 230 years ago or so, the ideas behind capitalism were embraced in certain parts of the world. And those parts of the world exploded in terms of economic growth and progress. Thank you for listening or watching the Iran Book Show. If you'd like to support the show, we make it as easy as possible for you to trade with me. You get value from listening, you get value from watching, show your appreciation. You can do that by going to iranbrookshow.com slash support by going to Patreon, subscribe star locals and just making a appropriate contribution on any one of those, any one of those channels. Also, if you'd like to see the Iran Book Show grow, please consider sharing our content and of course, subscribe. Press that little bell button right down there on YouTube so that you get an announcement when we go live. And for those of you who are already subscribers and those of you who are already supporters of the show, thank you. I very much appreciate it.


Welcome to Quantum Field Theory 7, Oppenheimer and Beta. In this video, we consider results from two papers, one from each of these authors, that describe the problem of infinities in quantum field theory. Oppenheimer wrote his paper in 1929, while a physics professor at University of California. Beta wrote his paper nearly 20 years later in 1947, while a physics professor at Cornell University. In between, both played central roles in the Manhattan Project. Oppenheimer, his director of Los Alamos Laboratory, oversaw all scientific aspects of the project, while Beta led the theoretical physics division. Oppenheimer's paper, published in 1930 during the early years of quantum field theory development, was titled, Note on the Theory of the Interaction of Field and Matter. His paper develops a method for the systematic integration of the relativistic wave equations for the coupling of electrons and protons with each other and with the electromagnetic field. We have, to some extent, also been doing this in this video series, although using the non-relativistic equation for the electron. Oppenheimer concluded that, it is impossible on the present theory to eliminate the interaction of a charge with its own field, and the theory leads to false predictions when it is applied to compute the energy levels and the frequency of the absorption and emission lines of an atom. Oppenheimer's work was, in part, responsible for Fermi, concluding his seminal 1932 review of the then-current state of the quantum theory of radiation. With the statement, practically all the problems in radiation theory which do not involve the structure of the electron have their satisfactory explanation, while the problems connected with the internal properties of the electron are still very far from their solution. During the 1930s, researchers struggled with these perplexing problems which manifested as infinities in various quantum field theory calculations. Frustration grew to the point that some feared the field was a dead end. Others took these problems as an indication that something was wrong with the basic concepts and methods of physics itself. In 1937, Dirac proclaimed, because of its extreme complexity, most physicists will be glad to see the end of quantum electrodynamics. In 1936, Polly's opinion was, it seems to me that our present methods are not fundamental enough and there are two possibilities for overcoming the difficulties. The first is to change our concept of space and time in small regions. The second, to change the concept of state for systems with an infinite number of degrees of freedom. With the onset of World War II, quantum field theory research effectively came to an end as most research activity was redirected toward developing technologies for the war effort. Beta's paper was written in 1947, shortly after the end of World War II, when attention was returning to peacetime research topics, and when some of the technological advances made during the war could be applied to new experimental investigations. One of these was the application of microwave technology, originally developed for radar, to study very small energy differences in atomic energy levels. Lam and Rutherford used this to conduct, in Beta's words, some very beautiful experiments. These show that the 2S level of the hydrogen atom, which should have the same energy as the 2P level in both the Schrodinger and Dirac theories, is actually higher by about 1,000 megacycles or 1 GHz. This is on the order of only about 1 millionth the energy of a typical hydrogen transition. Beta references the suggestion that a possible explanation might be the shift of energy levels by the interaction of the electron with a radiation field. However, he notes that this shift comes out infinite in all existing theories, and has therefore always been ignored. He continues, However, it is possible to identify the most strongly divergent term in the level shift with an electromagnetic mass effect. This is the quantum version of the classical electromagnetic mass effect we described in video 5. The solution Beta suggested in this paper was the same we considered in that video, renormalization of the electron mass. Let's look at the calculation of the electron self-energy in quantum field theory. Oppenheimer and Beta treated the problem in the context of the electron in an atom, and Oppenheimer used relativistic theory. We are going to deal with the much simpler problem of a free electron using non-relativistic theory, but the main conclusions will be the same. In the previous video, we studied photon-electron scattering via the H-hat-i double prime part of the interaction Hamiltonian. This allowed us to describe the destruction of an electron and a photon, followed by the creation of a different electron and a different photon. We interpreted this as electron-photon scattering, and we found the following transition rate. Due to the factor nL Beta, if there are no photons present initially, there is no scattering. So we would expect the electron to continue on in its pure momentum state forever. However, it turns out that even if there are no photons present initially via the H-hat-i double prime term, an electron can emit a photon and immediately reabsorb it. In this way, it, quote, interacts with its own field. This is the type of process Oppenheimer was referring to. Consider the scattering process where the same electron and photon are destroyed and created. H-hat-i double prime contains operators that destroy any electron and create any other electron. A special case is the destruction and recreation of the same electron. Likewise, the destruction and recreation of the same photon. Since the destruction operator is to the right of the creation operator, this suggests that the photon is first absorbed, then emitted. Of course, that would require the photon to already exist. But there is also a factor with the creation operator on the right. This suggests the photon is first emitted and then absorbed. Now keep in mind our previous caution to not take Feynman diagrams literally. The Feynman diagram is really just a visual representation of a term in the interaction Hamiltonian. Even though the diagram seems to suggest the photon would fly off to infinity and so could never come back around from the other side to be absorbed, we cannot literally represent this process on a space-time diagram. An alternate illustration is to show the photon being emitted and looping back around to be absorbed. Again, we should not take this literally. The key point is that the electron is emitting and then absorbing a photon instantaneously. It is interacting with its own field. This is the quantum version of the classical electron self-force we described in video 5. Assume our quantum state is a single electron with momentum P in vacuum. The radiation state with zero photons. We want to calculate the energy of this state. There are three terms in this expression. One for the electron Hamiltonian, one for the radiation Hamiltonian, and one for the interaction Hamiltonian. The electron Hamiltonian is the sum over all momentum states Q of the kinetic energy Q squared over 2 Me times the number operator B hat Q plus B hat Q minus. This term counts the single electron in the P momentum state and extracts the electron kinetic energy P squared over 2 Me. The radiation Hamiltonian is the sum over all photon modes K alpha of omega K times the number operator A hat K alpha plus A hat K alpha minus plus one half. There are no photons, so this leaves one half omega K for each mode. There are two polarizations alpha for each K vector which cancels the one half and we obtain the sum over all K of omega K. Since there are infinite number of photon modes and omega K increases with K, the sum equals infinity. This infinity is the zero point energy we discussed in video 2. Previously we have ignored this infinity arguing that it is unobservable and will cancel when we calculate energy differences. As we have seen before, the non-relativistic interaction Hamiltonian has two terms H hat I prime and double prime. The first contains a product between the electromagnetic field operator A hat and the momentum operator P hat. While the second has the product of A hat with itself. A hat contains a sum over all photon states of destruction and creation operator terms. Therefore H hat I prime can create or destroy a single photon. A hat squared contains products of a destruction operator for a photon in the state K alpha with a creation operator for state L beta or a creation operator for a photon in the state K alpha with a destruction operator for state L beta. If K alpha and L beta are the same state then H hat I double prime can create and destroy the same photon. Let's call these terms in A hat squared A hat self squared. This is the sum over all photon states K alpha of 1 over 2 omega K times creation operator destruction operator plus destruction operator creation operator for the K alpha photon. In this case the only factors in H hat I double prime with spatial dependence are E to the minus I P dot X and E to the I Q dot X. The integral of this product over space vanishes unless P equals Q in which case the product is one. This simply tells us that if we create and destroy the same photon we must create and destroy the same electron to conserve momentum and energy. Let's call the result the H hat I double prime self operator. When this operates on our quantum state product of B hat operators destroys and recreates the electron in momentum state P. The first product of A hat operators tries to destroy a photon but the vacuum state contains no photons so this produces nothing. Our problem is that the second product of A hat operators creates and then destroys a photon in the K alpha state which takes us back to the vacuum state. So we end up with a sum over all photon states of 1 over 2 omega K times the vacuum state. Projecting this on to our quantum state we obtain E squared over 2 Me times the sum over all photon states of 1 over 2 omega K. In our units omega K equals the magnitude of K. For a given omega K we sum all states over a sphere of area 4 pi K squared. The sum over the two polarizations for each state gives us a factor of 2 and the sum over K values becomes 1 over 2 pi cubed times the integral over all K of 4 pi K squared. The result is that the self energy of the electron becomes a constant times an integral that diverges to infinity. Therefore the electron has infinite self energy due to its interaction with the vacuum state of the electromagnetic field. What are we supposed to do with this result? As beta noted physicists generally ignored this. The argument being that all electrons will have this additional infinite energy so it will cancel when energy differences are calculated and we can only observe energy differences, not absolute energies. This is the same argument we used previously to ignore the infinite zero point energy of the photon field. Another argument was to note that the infinity is due to the infinite upper limit of the integral. If we assume instead a finite upper frequency limit K-limb then the integral will be finite. Since wavelength is 2 pi over K this is equivalent to setting a smallest wavelength limit. If the physical predictions this leads to are independent of this limit then the problem goes away. As it stands approach number two is as much of a hand-waving exercise as approach number one. That is unless a physical argument can be made for a specific cutoff. Heisenberg investigated if just as the uncertainty principle sets a lower limit on the product of position and momentum uncertainties and Planck's constant sets a lower limit on action nature might also set a lower limit on distance. But unlike the other two examples no experimental evidence for a lower distance limit could be observed. Others as alluded to by Pauli's quote earlier in this video took these infinities as evidence that something in the way we conceive of space and time might break down at very small scales. Niels Bohr in particular argued that a revolutionary new type of physics was called for. However no such revolutionary new physics was successfully developed. Instead quantum field theory was molded into a form that produced amazingly precise and experimentally verified physical predictions. This was done by developing arguably mathematically and philosophically jarring workarounds for the infinities that played it. The infinities we have encountered so far can be dealt with by a trick called normal ordering. Both the infinite zero point energy of the electromagnetic field and the infinite self energy of the electron come from the operator combination A hat minus A hat plus for a given photon mode acting on the vacuum state because the expectation value of this is one and this is then summed over the infinite number of photon modes. If these operators were in the opposite order there would be no problem since the destruction operator operating on the vacuum state vanishes. Now operators for different photon states commute but operators for the same state do not. Instead as we saw in the first video in this series the commutator of photon destruction and creation operators is one.  That substitution would result in the same expectation value as before. But how about this? Let's just ignore the commutation relation and make the replacement as if the operators did commute. That is what we call normal ordering. Here's the self interaction part of the H hat I double prime operator. Applying normal ordering, the second problematic A hat operator term becomes identical to the first term. This gives us two times the first term which cancels a factor of two in the denominator. The resulting operator applied to the photon vacuum state vanishes and along with that are infinite electron self energy vanishes also. We can apply the same trick to the problematic one half term in the radiation Hamiltonian. We multiply it by the A hat minus A hat plus commutator which has a value of one. The first and third terms combine to give one half times the first term.  Just as in the previous case this will vanish when applied to the photon vacuum state. Normal ordering is the convention that we put all creation operators to the left of destruction operators without regard to commutation relations. This is a trick that avoids the embarrassing infinities we have encountered so far. Heisenberg called this the Klein-Jordan trick after the authors who first applied it. It is important to note that this is no more mathematically rigorous than simply saying let's just ignore the one half term in the radiation Hamiltonian. And in the nearly 90 years since no mathematically consistent way to deal with these infinities has been developed. As a recently published textbook says when you normal order something you just pick up the operators and move them. Just manhandle them over without any commuting. So even though we have a catchy notation for normal ordering placing an expression between colons this process ignores commutation relations. And what are commutation relations? As discussed in video one of this series they are a manifestation of the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics. And as such they are essential to the inner workings of quantum field theory. Yet in a special case we ignore them ignoring the foundations of quantum mechanics in order to hide embarrassing infinities. This is a compromise we make in order to move onward with the theory. However as we do so we will find other infinities that cannot be hidden with this trick.


More than any other book, Zechariah looks forward to the coming of the Messiah. Hope for the people is found not in a great conqueror, but in the one who comes on a donkey and who will be pierced and who will die. The illusions to Jesus are thick, but let's get behind that. God steps in on behalf of his people and is the good shepherd that Zechariah promised. He is the one who suffered wounds on behalf of his people. We are saved because God acts. Yes, the people have been disobedient, but their disobedience is overcome by the very one the people pierced. You see, whether or not we have been faithful is of little consequence to the one who promises to always be faithful to us.


I don't even really know what this video is supposed to be about now. We're in a classical conditioning mode and Lev Vagatsky popped into my head because we're talking about classical conditioning, which got me thinking about theories of learning, which got me thinking about Lev Vagatsky's zone of proximal development, and you get the idea and it's all connected. How about this? What if we just cover something called higher-order conditioning? Yeah. So, yes, I know, we've already got a Penny Packers patents on it, but it doesn't really go into much detail. I talk really, really fast in the video because those are supposed to be done in one minute. And I'm not sure if you can get this idea across in one minute very clearly, although a lot of you seem to think that you've, I did. So anyway, whatever. The point is higher-order conditioning. Let's take a look at it with some examples this time. So here we go. So, no, not yet. I have to explain something. So, in the middle. So higher-order conditioning is really straightforward. It's classical conditioning, right, except we're going to use multiple layers of classical conditioning. I did three, but really, we're just going to do two. Why are you gropin' on there? You didn't say level. He's really trying to trap me behaviorally. It's this weird self-management thing he's trying to do. He really wants me to say that particular word, and I'm not going to say it, because it's going to prompt him to burst into song. So anyway, we're going to start with classical conditioning in a nutshell. It's really straightforward, right? So we have a neutral stimulus. We're going to put a stimulus up here on the screen that is a neutral stimulus, if you've been following along. So there's your neutral stimulus. We're going to turn that neutral stimulus into a conditioned stimulus by pairing it with an unconditioned stimulus, whatever that may be up there as well. So we've got two stimuli up on the board. The neutral stimulus is going to be presented, and then we're going to follow that with the unconditioned stimulus, and you're going to develop a CS, right? The CS is going to elicit a CR, right? Everything's normal. This is just classical conditioning. This is good Pavlovian stuff, responding conditioning, whatever you want to say. So really straightforward, but that's just the primary conditioning. Now, we're going to level up a notch, and we are going to add what shall we say another, like I said, another layer, another level of conditioning. So we're going to take that CS that you just developed. We will now call that CS1. So we will take a new neutral stimulus, that one, and then we're going to pair that neutral stimulus with CS1, with the conditioned stimulus that was up there before, right? So now the neutral stimulus is going to predict CS1, CS1 is functionally at this point hanging out on extinction. Why? Because it's not being paired with the U.S. We could pair that CS1 back with the U.S. to keep the strength up, and ultimately you would have to over time, and this is where higher-order conditioning starts to fall apart. We're not there yet. So then we have, so the neutral stimulus, the second neutral stimulus, now becomes our CS2 when we pair that second neutral stimulus with the CS1. So CS2, then takes on the properties, I hate saying that, but whatever, takes on the properties of CS1. CS1 has developed power because of its pairing with the unconditioned stimulus. CS2 has never been paired with the unconditioned stimulus, not once, but it seems to have an evocative effect. It seems to have an eliciting effect on your responding. So you're going to have a CR. There is no guarantee, folks, that the CR looks exactly like the UR. There's a misconception out there that they're literally the exact same thing. They do not have to be. So keep that in mind whenever you're thinking about conditioning. The conditioned response does not necessarily have to look exactly like the unconditioned response. It just has to be elicited by a particular stimulus. So we've got our primary conditioning. We have our secondary conditioning, which is CS2, so CS2 gets paired with CS1 and develops its own CR, so CR2 now. So we could do a third one that's very rare. Some people report it as being effective. It's kind of a mixed bag on the literature. People have been studying this for a long time. It seems to fall apart. Sometimes people can show it. Sometimes they can't. So it's not a very robust effect, but we'll talk about it anyway. So it's tertiary, right? So the tertiary level would be taking a third neutral stimulus and pairing it with the second CS. So now we take that third neutral stimulus. We're going to pair it with the CS2 and we're going to produce the CR3. So now we're going to get a third CS and it will produce a third CR. Again, not very powerful. It doesn't seem to always work, so I wouldn't really want to go there. So this is something to keep in mind then when you're out there doing your program, right? So because you've got your basic reinforcers, your primary reinforcers, and then you're wanting to pair something with us, like praise or something like that, all sorts of things are secondary reinforcers, or conditioned reinforcers, sorry. So all sorts of things are conditioned reinforcers, which are really just special types of conditioned stimuli. So those particular conditioned stimuli can then have an effect on behavior when delivered contingently. We call that reinforcers or punishers or whatever. You get the idea, right? But you have to maintain the power of that conditioned reinforcer. It doesn't just automatically stay there forever. It tends to get weakened over time. Why? Because every time you present that CS by itself without ever a reinforcer following it, without ever an unconditioned stimulus following it, you're on extinction, respond to extinction, right? So CS presented by itself without the US produces extinction. So every time you have a conditioned stimulus that is a reinforcer, then guess what? Can you present it without the US? You're functionally on extinction. So don't forget that, right? So then when you try to go up to another level, now you're going to run into all sorts of weird problems, okay? So even on secondary higher-order conditioning, when you're talking about conditioned stimuli and their effect as associated with a reinforcer, then we're really going to start to get some very interesting effects. They're not going to be as robust as what you would hope for. So you really, really, really have to make sure that your conditioning is really crystal clear. This is something that can happen in token economies if you don't do your token economy, right? So just make sure that when you're using your token economy that you don't have too many layers, right? You want those tokens to be able to be exchanged for something and you want to exchange them frequently. Why? Because they lose their value. If they don't, those tokens are functionally, functionally. That's a flip and new word. Functionally. Functionally. CS2s. Think about it. You've already had the CS1, the CS1 is the reinforcer that you're not trading those things in for food, sex, water, or warmth. You're trading them in for toys or money or videos or whatever. So those things that you're trading them in for, those tokens in for, they're already conditioned stimuli. They're already conditioned reinforcers. As a result, when you then take your token and anyway it gets paired and the value of it becomes, you know, it starts to take on the value of the other condition stimuli, you already had higher order conditioning. I wouldn't be adding too many more layers in there. And so the take-home message for the applied piece is that all of this stuff that you may not think about, may not focus on really does play a role. When you're thinking about the effectiveness of reinforcers, when you're thinking about the effectiveness of a token economy, you need to be thinking about higher order conditioning and primary conditioning and secondary conditioning, all that fun stuff. If you don't think about that, then the programs are not necessarily going to be as effective as what they could be. Some of you have been shaped to where it's just automatic and you get it, right? And that's fine. I have no problem with that. Contingency-shaped behavior and the behavior analyst. I love it. Hey! I'm just giving you another rule to follow that. Don't forget to remember your history here. Don't forget to remember your old-school research, the stuff that people often tend not to remember. There's value in it and I just want you to keep that in mind as you move forward that a lot of things affect the effectiveness of your practice in here as some of them. So anyway, that was higher order conditioning and a bit bigger of a nutshell. Hope you enjoyed it as much as I did wearing flannel.


Hello, welcome to SSUnited, so see this site and this is continuation of SQL Server interview questions results. So today we are going to discuss one more interview question that was asked in Pine Labs. So one of my friend has attended interview with the Pine Lab. So this question was asked over there. So let's move to next slide to understand about the question. So here as we can see we are having input table that would have five columns. First is players then match then over then run and then wickets. So in the output we are also having five columns with the player name then total number of matches then total over then total runs then total wickets. So in case of Karthik he played three matches with the M1, M2 and M3. So in the total number of matches it is going to be done as three. In the over he bold 2.2 overs in the first match 3.0 over in the second match and 3.3 over in the third match. So total number of overs would be 8.5 in case of run 14, 22 and 12. So in the output total number of runs is 48. He has taken two wickets in the first match then one wicket then four wicket. So total number of wickets would be 7. So this is the output. So we can directly use the count function to get the total number of matches and we can use the sum function to directly get the run and total number of wickets. But in case of over we can't use the sum function directly because in a single over it has six balls. If we get six after the decimal places then that would be added with one over. So how we can write the query for getting this output. So let's move to SQL Server Management Studio where we will write the query for getting the output. As I am using SQL Server 2017 you may have another version of SQL Server. So first of all I would like to execute the create table statement to create the table. So command completed successfully. So table is created. Now I just want to insert record on the table so we can execute this insert statement. So nine rows affected. So data is successfully inserted into the table. And we can check. So here we are having the same metadata as we seen in the slide. First of all I would like to discuss about the parse name function. So parse name function is going to use get the values after the decimal places. So how we can use and we can check. So parse name and it is except two parameters first with the column name. So we want to get the column name from over and how many decimal places we want. So we just want only one decimal place. Now we can execute and check the output. So here as we can see 2.2 so we are getting 2 here 3.0 so we are getting 0 3.3 so 3. So we are getting the values only after decimal place. What would be the logic? So logic is very simple. First I need to get the only numeric part from this over and then this decimal part from the over. In the numeric part that would be like 2 words so we need to multiply by 6 because in a single over that would have 6 balls. So that would be total number of balls. So in case of Karthik match 1 we will get 12 plus 2 so 14. Then 3 so that would be 18. In 3.3 so we need to multiply 3 with 6 plus 3 that would be 21. Then we need to combine all the balls and then we need to divide by 6 and if we will get anything after the decimal places then we need to use that one as well. So let me write the query for the better understanding. So here I just want to get the player name first. So this is our player name. Second I just want to use count with the total number of match. So we can use count with the matches and it would be total number of matches. After that we can use our logic. So first of all I would like to convert this into integer to get the integer part over as integer. Now it looks good. Then we need to multiply it by 6. After that we can use the sum and here we need to use the pass name function as we seen. Then over how many different places we want? We want only one decimal place and we can combine all the balls. So we can use the sum function with this and let me call this as total balls. Then we need to use run. So we can use the sum function for the run and directly we can use as run looks good. Then we need to combine total number of wickets. So again we can use the sum of wickets and let me call this as wicket. Now as I am going to use the aggregate function so we have to use group by clause. So group by with the player name. Now let me execute and check the output. So here as we can see we are having total number of balls, total number of runs, total wickets and total matches. So let me compare with the output. So here as we can see in case of Deepak he bought 7.0, 36 runs and 5 wickets.  So now we need to convert this total balls into overs. So let me put this into a CT. So this is the CT and now we can use this select from CT. Now I need to get the total overs. So for that we can use total balls divided by 6. Now we can execute. So this time we will get but if we will have anything after decimal place that would be missing. So 7, 7 and 8. Now I need to cast this value as worker 10. Then I just want to combine dot that is fine. Then we have to get values after the decimal places. So how we can get? So we can directly use total balls. Then we can use mod with 6 and we need to also convert this as worker. So let me convert this as worker and 10. Now let me execute and check the outputs. So this would be the total number of overs. So Karthik has bold 8.5 overs. Now we can check Karthik has bold 8.5 overs, Deepak 7.0 and Divyaan 7.2. So we are getting the output as we were expecting. So thank you so much for watching this video. If you like this video please subscribe our channel to get many more videos. Don't forget to press the bell icon to get the notification of our newly uploaded videos. And if you need this script it will be available on the description of this video. So you can copy from there. Thank you so much for watching.