China's economy has hit its slowest pace of growth in a year in the third quarter, hurt by people power shortages, supply chain bottlenecks and major wobbles in the property market, and raising pressure on policymakers to do more to prop up the faltering recovery. The National Bureau of Statistics spokesperson Fu Linzhu told the news conference in Beijing that the economy has the ability and conditions to complete the expected goals and tasks for economic and social development throughout the year. Data release on Monday showed gross domestic product GDP grew 4.9% in July-September from a year earlier, the weakest clip since the third quarter of 2020 and missing forecasts. Despite the drop in growth, the government says it is confident that targets will be met. The world's second largest economy is facing several major challenges, including the China Evergrande Group debt crisis, ongoing supply chain delays and a critical electricity crunch, which sent factory outputs to its weakest since early 2020 when heavy COVID-19 curbs were in place.


What's going on everybody? This is 1920 hip parade the rookies graded basketball edition series 1 5 box half case break number 4 Random teams sold out on jazby's case breaks calm. Thanks everybody for getting in Job broke the first half a little earlier tonight. This is the second half of the case and we're gonna go five times on both lists Customer names and the teams five times. There's one two three four and five and Ted is still live on Instagram. So if you want to keep breaking tonight, you can pop over there He's got origins football personals and a bunch of other stuff five times on the teams one two three four and five times Pelicans down to the Miami Heat Michael B. Pelicans Daniel Cavs Ken Nets Mike jazz Ken Blazers Brian Nuggets Ken Bulls Adam K. T. Wolves Ken Hawks Joe Grizz Ken Kings Matt Celtics will Wizards John Nix Daniel Hornets John Rockets David O. Lakers Ken Pistons and Magic Ryan Mavericks Sean Sixers Ken Sons Shay Clippers Tony Warriors Adam K. Bucks Michael B. Thunder Fouad Spurs Kenneth Pacers Stephen K. Raptors and Ken Heat So I'll keep the trade window open for a minute or so see if anybody wants to deal if not will rip Yeah, so we'll have a filler for those oh three or four top scrims I just wanted to give everybody a chance to get a full spot before I take some spots out for fillers But that might be able to break tomorrow What do you mean now I'm LC telling them to come here Stephen K. He's got the Raptors for trade Yeah, I'm not sure what you mean man You mean the Instagram stream damn Anthony Davis 15 for 2032 points I don't know what What that meant cryptic messages Anybody want to trade? Raptors with Stephen K. Raptors are pretty good Stephen K Maybe some siacum Maybe some oji on a newbie. I guess there could be Kyle Lowry to Marta Rosen to Remember, it's rookie. So they'll be their rookie year And remember it'll go to the team that's on the card, of course It's like that Kevin Durant is Sonic so that'd go to the Thunder But if it's a college uniform, we're gonna go by the group break checklist if there's no group break checklist We're gonna go by our college rules current team if active team. They played for longest if we're tired So if it's like a KD Texas Uniform Well, Stephen K is the only other person that have a team up for trade. Did you want to do Raptors for wizards? If not, you'll probably rip Did you guys want to do that? Will says sure Stephen K. Did you want to do wizards for Raptors? No, okay Trade window close then Good luck. See what we got Okay, good luck everybody All right, this box is 94 Of 100 all right, we got a Beckett card up first. Wow, very nice. There's a 9-5 1920 optic rated rookie John Morant Very nice Nice way to start Memphis Grizzlies going out to Joe Foster this one's 51 of 100 another Beckett slab. Whoa I think I Did I see what I think I saw? Imagine if it's Jordan. Oh Okay, I thought it was a real 86 87 card. No, it's a Kind of like a retro throwback Reprint 1986 87 rookies In 2008-09 Fleer, that's Russell Westbrook BJ's mint nine could be a Candidate for a regrade the surface is an 8-5 everything else is a 9-5. Maybe a person who submitted it didn't Clean it off good enough or something. So that's of course. Okay, see thunder That's going out to Michael beat Another Beckett slab Wow, I think this was on the cell sheet. That's a 1213 innovation stained glass rookie of Damian Lillard BGS gem in 9-5 nice Dame dollop for the Blazers Ken Kenneth with that one nice stained glass from innovation Damian Lillard Another Beckett card all four have been Beckett so far This one is a 1415 select Joel and beat RC Some of the labels are a little bit scratched up with Beckett sometimes it happens Philadelphia 76ers That's Sean. We'll put them in great cart sleeves though before we mail them Sean without one nice and bead Just got a new coach All right, this one feels lighter. This is definitely a PSA slab All right last card of the break. Good luck PSA 2003 Tops PSA eight Dwayne Wade Nice 0304 Miami Heat is Kenneth Bertha.  Thanks everybody for getting it hip raids at the rookie's granted basketball edition series one Five bucks half case break number four appreciate it. Thanks everybody. See y'all next time


Ladies and gentlemen, you may now read Dragnet every day on the comic page of your favorite newspaper. Please consult your local daily paper. The story you are about to hear is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. Fatima cigarettes. Best of all, king-size cigarettes brings you Dragnet on both radio and television.  You're assigned a bunco detail. A team of confidence men are taking thousands of dollars from the people of your city. Their method of operation? Posing as solicitors for different charitable causes. There's no lead to their whereabouts. Your job? Stop them. Compare Fatima with any other king-size cigarette. Yes, compare Fatima with any other king-size cigarette. 1. Fatima's length filters the smoke 85 millimeters for your protection. 2. Fatima's length cools the smoke for your protection. 3. Fatima's length gives you those extra puffs, 21 percent longer than standard cigarette size. Fatima gives you more for your money. And in king-size Fatima, you get an extra mild and soothing smoke, plus the added protection of Fatima quality. Buy Fatima in the bright sunny yellow pack. Dragnet, the documented drama of an actual crime. For the next 30 minutes in cooperation with the Los Angeles Police Department, you will travel step-by-step on the side of the law through an actual case transcribed from official police files. From beginning to end, from crime to punishment, Dragnet is the story of your police force in action. It was Tuesday, February 16th. It was cold in Los Angeles. We were working the day watch out of Bunko detail. My partner's Bill Lockwood. The boss is Captain Steed. My name's Friday. We were on the way out from the office, and it was 2.18 p.m. when we got to First and Valencia. The West Valley Hotel. We're here to the left, Joe. No, you're not. Excuse me? Sorry, we're all filled up. No more rooms. No, we don't want to register. We're police officers. I'd like to check one of your guests. You have a Raymond Seidel registered. S-E-I-D-E-L-L. Let's see, uh... No, there's no Raymond Seidel registered. Small man, about 5'6", 130 pounds, tan complexion, between 35 and 40, wears orange glasses. Well, I don't know. What's the trouble, anyway? Anyone like that registered here? I was just about to say there's no Raymond Seidel. We got a Raymond Singer, though.  I'd say he was about 3'4". In his room now? No, matter of fact, he just left a minute ago. He went out for lunch, I think, just before you fellas walked in. Where does he usually eat, you know? Our coffee shop, right next door. He's got a great top coat on, great hat. Okay, thanks. You can use that door right here. It connects to the coffee shop. Right, thank you. Spot him. Yeah, fire under the counter, up on the front door, see him? Yeah, description checks, then. Come on. He spotted us going through the front door. All right, police officers, hold it up there. Make your run for it. All right, come on. This way. Where'd he go? I lost him. Alley up ahead, he ducked in there. Down the ramp, Joe, hotel garage. Ran in there. All right, come on, let's hurry. You spot him, Bill? No. Any other way out beside this ramp? Wait a minute. Yeah, down the far end there, another exit. I'll take that, you cover this end. Right. All right, watch it, Billy. He's coming out, the blue sedan. All right, hold it. Look out, Joe, coming at us. I'll go for his tire. What's the pitch anyway? I wasn't doing anything. Hands behind you. Raymond Seidel, is that right? That's right, I wasn't doing anything. What's this all about? You know as well as we do. Look what you did in my car. Just look at it. You cracked it up, Mr. Weedon. Come on. Come on, where? I haven't done anything. We want to talk to you downtown. I'm not saying anything. You can talk to my lawyer. Get the story from him. We already got it. Come on, let's go. 2.35 p.m. We took the suspect Raymond Seidel back to the hotel with us, where we checked his room thoroughly. Bill got on the phone, made arrangements to have Seidel's car impounded and a stakeout placed at the hotel. Then we drove back to the city hall and took the suspect to the interrogation room. A check through our records and identification bureau earlier in the day had revealed a fair-sized record for Seidel. He'd had four previous local arrests. Two for petty theft, one for second-degree burglary, one for grand theft auto. He'd been convicted on one of the petty thefts and also on the burglary charge for which he'd served time in the state penitentiary at San Quentin. Bill and I started questioning him. The first half hour we got nowhere.  I've been clean ever since I got out. Where were you last night, Ray? Knocking around town. What'd you do? Had a couple of drinks, went to a show, came out and went to see some bimbo, I know. What's your name? Helen, lives up on South Custer. You can ask her. She'll tell you I was there. What time did you see her? About 10 o'clock. Yeah, just about.  Hmm?  What gives you a call to say that? It's a truth. Then four other people must be lying. What do you mean what other people? You know what I mean. Now, how about it, Ray? I don't know what you mean, so help me. I don't. Why don't you give it upside down? You ought to know better. We wouldn't have you down here if we didn't have you pegged. Pegged for what? I don't even know what you're talking about. All right, then. I'll tell you, Ray. About 8.30 last night, you put in a call to a Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Keyes. They live out in East Hollywood. Gladstone, 3962. Mrs. Keyes answered the phone. You told her you were taking contributions for European children war orphans. You knew she was interested in the cause. You asked her for a donation. You're crazy. That wasn't me. You've done Mrs. Keyes, and she agreed to contribute. She offered $50. You talked her up to $150. She asked you where to send the money, and you said never mind. You'd be out to collect it. 45 minutes later, you were out there.  You walked up the block to the Keyes' place, collected the money, and you left. Now, you prove it with me. You prove it. We got her cold, Seidel. Mrs.  You had no credentials, nothing.  You got the license number of your car when you pulled away, so the owner of the candy store. You parked your car just outside his place. All three of them can describe you and your car. Mr. Keyes, Mrs. Keyes, the man at the candy store. Yeah, that right. Getting over to your ray? Gonna take more than a couple of people to build a case. All right, we got more. You gave Mrs. Keyes a signed receipt for the $150. You signed it, Tom Seidel. Our handwriting man checked the signature with a specimen of your handwriting we got from your package. Now, they both checked, not a doubt in the world. What do you say? I don't know. What would you say?  What's the story? Isn't any of it? Why should I dig my grave? Any way you want it.  It's a lie. It's a lousy lie. Cigarette ray? What are you trying to do to me anyway? 14 jobs have never hustled that hard in my life. That's how many we've had in the last couple of months. Why load them on me? Every one of them follow the same general MO. Same way you worked at last night. We don't know where you got your list of names, but you contact people who are interested in different charities. You pose as an authorized solicitor.  The last two months, you've been collecting for more than 10 different drives. European orphans, the milk fund, summer camp for underprivileged kids, crippled children's fund. People give their money in good faith and you take off with it. Look, uh... Your MO follows all the way through. It's a sour racket, Ray. We're gonna lean hard on you. I said, will you wait a minute? I know what I'm done. I'll give you the story. Yeah? I'm not taking the whole load on my back. I'll cop out to the one last night, but that's all. You look good for all of them. Look, will you give me a chance? The one last night was the first try for me. It's the only one I ever tried. I'm squaring with you. I was crazy even to make a pass that I shouldn't have known better. I'm not a bunkman. We already told you, Ray. Last night's a close match with the other jobs. You say you'll cop out to one. How do we account for the other 13? Just among us. Whatever I say, I don't want credit for it. All right. What's the pitch? Can I have that cigarette now? Yeah. There you are. Yeah, thanks. Here's a match. Thanks. I got another thing Sunday night. Doing a little drinking at this place on Boyle Avenue. There were a couple of guys at the bar I was talking about it. I didn't know them. Talking about what? The racket. Getting a list of marks and collecting charity money from them. These two guys weren't working it. They just heard it was going on. They were yacking the bartender about it. They figured some out of town grifters were doing it. And you figured you'd get in on the bandwagon, is that it? Well, I thought I'd try a couple of jobs. That's all. Need a few bucks to tide me over. Didn't look like much of a risk. What do you mean? Well, I heard about the MO the grifters were using. Pretty simple to copy. I followed it through just the way I heard they did it. They had a half dozen jobs under their belt already. If you knocked them over and they had to stand the wrap, a couple of jobs of mine wouldn't make any difference. Pre-ride, is that what you figured on? What's the difference? I didn't get it. Figured you'd catch up with them and they'd take the wrap for my jobs along with their own. And it's just my luck. You get me instead and now I'm up to stand the wrap for everything. That's a pretty fair story, Ray. Any way of proving it? Sure, easy. These grifters started working here two months ago, didn't they? They hit pretty hard the first week or so, didn't they? Yeah. Well, I wasn't even in town then. I wasn't here the whole month. I was at Monterey. Any way of proving that? Sure, I asked the sheriff up there. Huh? Ask a sheriff. He'll tell you. Why should he know anything about it? He ought to. He had me in jail the whole month. 3.40 p.m. While Bill continued questioning the suspect, Raymond Seidel, I went down the hall to the squad room and put in a call to the Monterey County Sheriff's Office. They confirmed Seidel's story. He'd been arrested in the town of Monterey December 13th, approximately two months before on charges of vagrancy and suspicion of robbery. He was confined in the county jail there from December 13th to January 15th, the same period of time during which the unidentified Bunko men had started their campaign of falsely soliciting funds for various charities. While the information cleared Seidel of any part in the Bunko charity operations throughout the city that month, he still had to answer for his actions the night before, soliciting contributions falsely from the couple out in East Hollywood, Mr. and Mrs. Keys. After his statement was taken, Bill Lockwood and I drove Seidel to the main jail where we booked him in on suspicion of 48 p.c. petty theft. Further investigation the next day and a half seemed to indicate that the last story we got from Seidel was pretty close to the facts. It was the case of a small-time thief imitating the apparently successful formula of a veteran team of Bunko artists, an imitation which in the criminal world is far from unusual. A week passed, despite the broadcasts, the bulletins and the special notices we'd gotten out on the suspects and their operations, there were three more cases reported. One of them came from a Mrs. Teresa Guilfoyle, the woman in charge of the crippled children's home. Bill and I drove out to talk to her. This is the first thing I want to show you, officers. What's that? This way, please. Go ahead, Bill. Yes, ma'am? Mere sweetheart. There are two gentlemen here I'd like to have you meet. Steven, this is Sergeant Friday, and this is Officer Lockwood, their policeman. This is Steven, officers. He's three years old. Well, how are you, Steven? Hello, son. He'd like to say hello, officers, but he can't. His legs aren't his only trouble. He can't hear. He can't talk, either. Oh, it's too bad.  And you bet you are. A little while with us, and you'll be talking a blue streak. All right, honey, you run along and play now. Real sweetheart, isn't he? I wanted you to meet him. So you'd see what this means to us. When I look at children like that, this whole mess just makes my blood boil. Yes, ma'am, we see what you mean. It's hard enough getting people to contribute money to keep this place open, help those poor kids to walk and talk. Thieves have to make it even harder. The way things are, I can't see how we're going to get through the year. Oh, how much he estimate has cost you, Mr. Gelfoyle? I mean, how much in donations are these 40 solicitors taken? Well, I know of at least $700 they've collected from different people, though it knows how much more money they got that was supposed to go to the home. I suppose a lot of people still think they gave their money to the right person. Did you receive the notice we sent out about six weeks ago, ma'am, about how these thieves operated? Yes, I did. I made a special note of it. When we sent out our annual appeal letter to our regular donors, most of your notice was incorporated right in it. I don't know what happened. I guess they didn't pay any attention to it. When did you first find out something was wrong, ma'am? It was yesterday morning. One of our regular donors, Mr. Baxter, called me. He wanted to know if we received his contribution all right. He wondered because he didn't receive his regular thank you note. That's when he told me about this man who came to his house and collected the money. I see. Sometimes I heard that. Two of the other girls and myself got on the phone and called every one of the regular donors. There were ten of them, just like Mr. Baxter, gave their good money to help these tots and we never received a penny of it. I've got all their names and addresses here if you'd like them. Yes, ma'am. Welcome to them if you want them. Yes, that'd be fine. We'd like to check with each one of them. Now, this is the complete list. All the regular donors who contributed and their money wasn't received. Is that right? Yes, sir, all those we know of is probably a lot more, I suppose.  You must have met all kinds. Yes, ma'am, I suppose so. What kind would you say these men are? I mean, going around and stealing the little regular income we have from donations. What kind of persons can they be? Well, there's thousands of them as gilfoil. They walk every city in the world. They want money. They want everything that goes with it. They'll do anything but work for it. But the money these men are stealing, they must know it's for these crippled children. They help them walk again, help them talk. Little kids like Steven. Yes, ma'am. These men call themselves human beings. And they take help away from a child like that. Humans. I couldn't be more ashamed of them. Ashamed of living the same city with them. Yes, ma'am. You'd think God would punish them. You'd think God would come down and punish them right now. Well, maybe he's even ashamed. Before we left, Mrs. Gilfoil gave us a complete list of the names and addresses of donors who contributed annually to the upkeep of the crippled children's home. For the next couple of days, Bill and I contacted each one of them personally. Those people who'd already given their contributions to the thieves unknowingly were unable to help us. Their descriptions of the men who solicited money from them in the name of the crippled children's home generally duplicated the descriptions we'd gotten from the previous victims. None of them were very detailed, but they did seem to confirm our theory that there were two or more men involved in the bunco operation. Receipts for the money they'd given the thieves were signed either by a Fred Wellman or a Norman Archer. The handwriting varied in each case. Those donors on the list who had not yet been contacted were the best hope we had of reaching the suspects. Since the crippled children's home appealed for funds only through the mail, we advised these people to get in touch with us immediately if anyone contacted them by phone and asked for contributions. A few more days passed, Monday, February 27th. We got a callback from one of these donors, a Mr. George Stage of the Consolidated Pool Company out in the valley. We located him supervising work at the site of one of their pool constructions in the Toluca Lake area. Oh, yeah. Glad to see you again, Sergeant. Say, could you hold on just a minute? I want to test that batch of mud and see if a mixture's right. Won't take a minute. Yes, sir. Go right ahead. Andy! Andy, come here a minute, will ya? How's that mixture look for you? Sure nice-looking pool, isn't it, Bill? Ah, big one. Sure me nice to have, wouldn't it? Yeah. Why don't you look into it? It's about all I could afford to do right now. Look into it. Okay, Sergeant. Six-two and even. I'm gonna go over by the truck, lose some of these rickets so we can talk. All right, that's fine. I hope I got something for you. You said on the phone you got a call last night. Well, I didn't. My wife did. They wanted to talk to me, but I wasn't home yet. I'm finishing a pool for some folks in Encina. Have a seat there if you want. Clean off this running board for you. Oh, that's all right. Fine. Well, what was the gist of the phone call, Mr. Stage? Who was it? Well, as I say, the wife answered. A fellow told her his name was Mr. Archer. He said he was collecting for the crippled kids' home. Of course, the wife knew the setup. After you talked to me, I warned her about the phony collectors going around. What'd she tell them, Nancy? Well, she didn't get a chance to tell them anything. She needed most of the talking.  The wife asked him if he'd leave a number so I could call him back when I got home. Well, did he leave a number? No. No, he gave some phony excuse. He wouldn't be at the same phone, something like that. How? Went out to ask her if she couldn't make out a check. Said he could come right out to pick it up. The wife said no, she couldn't. Matter of fact, she couldn't. I've got the checkbook. Excuse me. Andy! Andy, get one of the boys to help you down the hole. You can't do that all by yourself. My partner, Andy, is a great worker. Yes, sir. Well, what was the upshot of the phone conversation between Archer and your wife on there? Well, she kept asking for a phone number or an address someplace where I could get back to him when I got home. I guess they got it figured, though. He wouldn't give her a thank. And that's the way it ended, sir? Yes, sir. That's it. Might be I'll have better luck, though. What do you mean? Well, this fellow Archer told the wife he'd call me back tonight. You are listening to Dragnet. Authentic stories of your police force in action. Because of its quality, its extra mildness, its better flavor and aroma, more smokers coast to coast are switching to king-size Fatima's every day. Prove Fatima quality yourself. Compare Fatima with any other king-size cigarette. One, Fatima's length filters the smoke 85 mm for your protection. Two, Fatima's length cools the smoke for your protection. Three, Fatima's length gives you those extra puffs 21% longer than standard cigarette size. Fatima gives you more for your money. And in king-size Fatima, you get an extra mild and soothing smoke, plus the added protection of Fatima quality. Friends, in Fatima, the difference is quality. Fatima contains the finest tobacco superbly blended, and Fatima is extra mild with a much different, much better flavor and aroma. Remember, Fatima gives you more for your money because it's king-size and because you get the added protection of Fatima quality. Look for the bright, sunny yellow pack. Switch to Fatima today. Monday, February 27th, 1.30 p.m. As soon as we found out there was a possibility that one of the Bunko suspects might contact the potential victim, George Stage, that night, Bill and I started making arrangements to be ready for him. At 6.45 p.m., we were at the stage home when the suspect telephoned. He identified himself as Norman Archer. George Stage followed our instructions to the letter. He agreed to make a contribution and asked Archer to call at his home to pick up the check. He set the date for 9 o'clock that night to allow us enough time for preparations. We got in touch with Lieutenant Lee Jones at the crime lab, and he sent out two of his sound technicians with a microphone set up and a tape recorder. By 8 p.m., the installation was complete. The microphone concealed in the living room of the stage home and the tape recorder set up in an adjoining room. Bill and I were stationed at the recorder in the bedroom. 8.30, 8.45, we waited. 9 p.m., 9.05. Somebody at the front door. Yeah, you want to give me that headset, Bill? Here you go. Thank you. Okay, you want to turn on the recorder? Right, John. Hey, sir, glad to know you. Oh, yeah, Archer. Glad to meet you. Come on in. Thank you. All right, just sitting here watching television. Yeah, I see. Well, I don't suppose I have to tell you what a worthy cause it is. I represent Cripple Children's Home. I'm glad to make a donation. It's one of my favorite charity. I'm certainly happy to hear that, sir. Really, do you have any idea how much good your money does? Those little tarts out of the home really need our help. All the help we can give them, as far as they do. Are you one of the officials out of the home? Well, yes, I suppose you'd call it. And I'm one of the authorized collectors for the maintenance fund. I received every donation, all made out in your name. Yeah, here we are. I suppose you know that all donations to the home are deductible from your income tag. Yeah. Well, here we are. See, it's all filled out. Your name and address. This space, yeah, that bank is the amount of your contribution. I'll fill it out right now. All right. How much would you like me to put you down for, sir? Well, I don't know. I don't have too much cash on hand. Would it check me all right? Well, actually, we don't like to be fussy, but it does help our book work. The donations are made in cash. We're handling the funds. Oh, well, I've only got $20 or $30 in cash. I'd like to give more than that. You sure a check wouldn't be all right? Well, as I said, it's simple if a donation is cash, but a check is all right. Check's fine. Company checks are all I have here. Consolidated pool can be like a donation from the company. Oh, fine. Now, how should I make that out now, payable to the government? It's not incorporated. So what's your first name again? No, H.E.R. How much shall I put you down for? Yes, we certainly appreciate it, too. Our maintenance costs have gone up. To give those youngsters nothing but the best. I mean, if you could see your way clear to make it a little more this year, we'd certainly thank you for it. Is that a very good year? Let's make it 250. I appreciate it, Mr. Stege. Really, if it wasn't for such a great cause, I'd be embarrassed asking you for money. Not at all, only that. Yes, sir. We got it. Now, Rotten, can you get it? Yes, sir. Bill, do you want to take a look out the window? All right. Mr. Stege, will you leave that tape recorder right where it is? Don't let anyone touch it. We'll be back. Yeah, all right. He's pulling out, Joe. We're heading down the street. Okay. You see him, Bill? Yeah. Don't pass the next block. All right, let's hurry. Go ahead, slide on my side here. All right, let's keep the lights off for a couple of blocks. Don't get him excited. All right. Can you see him? The one turning left, grace it in. Is that him? Let's see. Yeah, that's it. Pull up close if you can, huh? See if we can make his license. Give it a try. How's that? A little closer. Okay, that's fine. One sugar 16605. All right. I'll check it and see if it's hot. One K80 to control one. One K80 to control one. One K80 to control one. Request rolling make for stolen and DMV on one sugar 16605. Repeat, 1S1 6605 KM8367. I wish we'd gotten a good look at him, Bill. Might've recognized him, huh? Yeah, it couldn't take a chance. Anyway, it's worth more if we get him and his partner together. Wrap it all up in one. Saved us a lot of headaches. Yeah, well, don't lose him. He turned left up to the next corner. Yeah, I saw him. He hasn't made us. Yeah, I think we're in the clear. All right, you can turn your lights on, huh? All right. One sugar 16605, no want. Car is a 1950 Pontiac, two-door sedan. Registered to Charles A. Sutton. 5840 Octavia Street, Los Angeles. Motor number one, Adam 6, Paul 3342. Legal the same, KM8367. One K80 to control one. Would you check records for Charles A. Sutton? Age and description unknown. Rush request. We have suspect under rolling surveillance. Control one to one K80, Roger. Looks like he's slowing down, Joe. All right, don't press him. Yeah, he's pulling up. He stopped there. Better cut the lights. Yeah, pull up right here, huh? Can you see him? Yeah. Going up to that house. Porch light on. Yeah. Must be where he keeps his pad. Acts like he's been there before. There's a man answering the door. He's going in. Control one. One K80 to control one. Go ahead. Five foot nine, 163 pounds. Brown hair, blue eyes. He has a long felony record, suspicion of robbery, suspicion of burglary, grand theft, bunco, also three outstanding traffic warrants. License number one sugar, one 6605. One K80 to control one, Roger. KM8367. What do you think? Let's take him. Right. All right, do you want to take the back bill? I'll go in the front. Okay, give me a second to get around. Right. Yeah? Police officer want to talk. All right, come on. Open it up. Pull it right there. Guess the wall. All right, you're back inside. Police officers. Okay.  What are you trying to do? What's this all about? We'll talk downtown. You know what it's all about. All right, over next to your partner. What are you doing anyway? You haven't got anything on us. You want to get the cuffs on him, Bill? Stand still, both of you. Here's mine. What's the pitch here anyway? Harry and I haven't done anything. Ah. Busting in here like this? Private House, you've got no business here. $250 says you're wrong. What? Just checking your right hand pocket. All right, come on. Let's go. The story you've just heard was true. The names were changed to protect the innocent. On May 28, trial was held in Superior Court, Department 88, City and County of Los Angeles, State of California. In a moment, the results of that trial. Now, here is our star, Jack Webb. Thank you, George Phenomenon. Friends, this coming weekend, I'd like to suggest that you put Fatimas at the top of your shopping list. You'll find it's mighty convenient to have enough Fatimas around the house to last into the next week. When you shop, just look for the bright, sunny yellow carton. You'll find Fatima gives you an extra mile in soothing smoke. And remember, Fatima gives you more for your money because it's king size and because you get the added protection of Fatima quality. Get a carton tomorrow. Fatima. Charles A. Sutton and his accomplice, Harold V. Mather, were tried and convicted on three counts of grand theft money and received sentences as prescribed by law. Grand theft is punishable by imprisonment and the state penitentiary for not less than one or more than 10 years. The initial suspect, Seidel, pled guilty to petty theft and received a sentence of one year in the county jail. You have just heard Dragnet, a series of authentic cases from official files. Technical advice comes from the office of Chief of Police W.H. Parker, Los Angeles Police Department. Technical Advisors Captain Jack Donahoe, Sergeant Marty Winn, Sergeant Vance Brasher. Heard tonight were Ken Peters, Virginia Greg, Vic Rodman. Script by Jim Moser. Music by Walter Schumann. Hell, get me speaking. King-sized Fatima, made with the same people who make popular Chesterfield cigarettes, has brought you Dragnet, transcribed from Los Angeles. Each Thursday night, it's Counter Spy on NBC.


Hello friends, I am Sanjay Gupta. In this video I am going to demonstrate you how you can add elements of two dynamic 2D metrics in C++. You can connect with me by following these details if you want to learn programming. You can subscribe my YouTube channel. You can search my channel on YouTube by typing my name in search bar. My channel will be available there. You can open my channel and you can subscribe it by clicking on this red button. You can watch various videos and playlist which are available in my channel on various programming languages. Now coming on to the topic. In this video I will be demonstrating how you can calculate some of two dynamic 2D metrics in C++ using new and delete operators. First I have included a header file IO stream. Then a namespace std is used using keyword. It is already defined in IO stream and it is for seen and see out objects. Then a class metrics is defined. Inside this class p pointer to pointer is declared and row and column variables are c are declared. Then in public section set size function destroy read print and some five functions are declared. Then class is terminated after termination of class. All five functions which are declared inside the class are defined. So first function is set size. This void is written type. Then matrix is name of class. Then scope resolution operator. Then name of function is set size and then parenthesis. Inside curly basis the definition of this set size function is written. Here see out will print enter rows and columns and the values are received using seen inside R and C variables. Then using this statement p equals to new integer pointer are memory for rows will be allocated and here memory of integer pointer type will be created using new operator and base address will be assigned into p. Then for creating columns, this loop is started, which is starting from zero and it will end till R. Then p of i equals to new and C. This statement will create a memory blocks for columns after creation of memory using set size function. Another function is defined, which is destroyer. This function will deallocates memory for columns first by using this loop and after completion of this loop, it will delete p pointer to pointer, which is allocating memory for number of rows. Then read function is defined. Read function is responsible for reading values from user. So here two loops are implemented in nested formation. First loop is repeating R times and second loop is repeating column times and all the elements are received using seen p of ij. After read function, print function is defined. It is also having two nested loops, one for rows and second for columns. And it is displaying elements of 2D matrix using see out statement. After completion of this inner loop, handle will change the line. So output will be displayed in matrix format. Then for addition purpose, this sum function is defined. Inside this function, two arguments are received inside M1 and M2. These formal parameters will receive values of explicit arguments. Then again, first loop for rows and second loop for columns are repeated. Row loop is known as outer loop and column loop is known as inner loop. Then inside inner loop addition is performed. Here p of ij is representing implicit argument. M1 dot p of ij is representing first explicit argument and M2 dot p of ij is representing second explicit argument. You can see p of ij is available in all the expression. This p is representing array. So here three arrays are used simultaneously. Two are adding using M1 and M2 and third one is storing their result. After completion of this loop, some function will be terminated. After some main function is defined, here three objects of matrix class are declared M1, M2, M3. Then set size functions are called for all three objects. These functions will be creating dynamic memory locations for all three objects. Then using see out M1 dot read and see out M2 dot read. Values of first and second matrix will be read from user. Then M3 dot sum M1 M2. This function will be calling some function. Here M3 is implicit argument and M1 and M2 are explicit arguments. So in some function, this p of ij is representing M3 and M1 dot p of ij and M2 dot p of ij are representing M1 and M2 explicit arguments respectively. The sum will be assigned into this M3 object. So it is displayed using M3 dot print statement. So here print function is called which will display the elements of M3 matrix. Then all three objects are destroyed using destroy function call and then return zero is available because return type of main is integer. So this way elements of two dynamic matrix are added and the result is assigned into third matrix. Now I'm going to execute this code. You can see it is asking for rows and columns. So I'm entering two and two. It is asking for rows and column for second matrix. I am again entering two two. Now it is asking for rows and columns for third matrix. Again, I am entering two two. Then it is asking for values for first matrix. I'm entering one for second matrix. I am entering two. You can see some is three three three three and some is displayed in matrix format. So friends this way elements of two dynamic 2D arrays are added using this program. I hope you have understood how this program is implemented using new and delete operators. If you want to watch more programming related videos, you can subscribe my channel on YouTube. Here various videos and programming related playlists are available. So keep following my YouTube channel. Thank you for watching this video.


I'm Kyle with Cobb Tuning. I'm here with my friend Eric who's the lead calibrator for the Nissan GTR platform We're coming at you direct from the belly of our 2009 Nissan GTR development vehicle for Cobb and today's topic We're gonna be talking about transmission control module off the shelf Optimized shifting maps a bit of a mouthful. We'll call them TCM OTS maps for short Eric can you tell us a little bit about why these maps are a necessity and also kind of what you did behind the scenes and access tuner to create Yeah, so as most of our customers that have driven GTRs know the factory shift schedule leaves a lot to be desired The car really shifts into six gear really really quickly at low mile per hour Which is great for gas mileage not so great for you know, you know, it feels like a very good enthusiast car So what we did is we went in decided that we're gonna make some TCM OTS maps that are a little bit more aggressive We went into the software and the tables that we adjusted are tables that are Mile per hour versus accelerator pedal position So some of the light load light accelerator pedal position stuff We went in made the shift schedule a little bit more aggressive both in the ups and down shifts. Cool so essentially what we're doing is creating an Auto mode map that would drive as if the car were a true manual. Yeah, exactly. Cool. Let's go ahead and Show you guys what it's like to accelerate from a low mile per hour And how quickly we get into six gear on the stock TCM automatic map So we're gonna take off, you know, really light load here. We're at about 18% pedal position as you can see the car is already shifting feels very sluggish Just kind of looks around you're at 1500 rpm if you were to kind of accelerate and drop some gears How does that? So it takes a while is that like 60% throttle drop two gears over at least a couple of seconds or so Not ideal for a supercar or an enthusiast feel for your transmission We're gonna go ahead and pull over and flash the Cobb optimized shift OTS map and see the differences All right guys. We're back in the GTR. We've got the TCM OTS optimized shift map flash to the TCM Eric can you show us the differences between the old one and what we've got currently flash now? Yeah, so we're gonna do pretty much the exact same test on the exact same stretch road We did with the factory shift schedule stuff So we're gonna kind of just accelerate up here about 18-20% pedal position Same as before yeah, you'll be able to see that the car just now shifts a lot later than it did on the OTS map stuff Makes it a lot nicer to drive. So we're in about Fourth gear at roughly 40 miles an hour or hasn't shifted into sixth gear like it did previously So again, like you said, it's just kind of acting as if it were a true manual and you were driving the car Yeah, exactly. So, you know here you can see we're holding a speed of 46 miles an hour 45 miles an hour in fifth gear The car will not shift into sixth gear Until you know we tell it to us. Oh, that's gonna be kind of nice much nicer to drive around well So you'll notice that the car will downshift and kind of engine break much more Aggressively than it did previously the stock transmission will not really shift down until you get to almost stop speeds Right, it's gonna hang out fifth and just fall the gears yeah exactly Which is got you it's done the cars doesn't feel very good when it's not a Prius. It's a GTR. Yeah, right, right cool well Thanks for taking the time to show us the new optimized shift maps and you guys can flash them on your GTR at home


Fuck. Fuck.  Okay, pick them. I got it. You wish for me to bring them to you in peace.  No, just bring them to me. I will burn them alive. It's like, dude, you have problems, mate. Do you know who I am? Have you played my other games? Can you tell more than rags? I said hi as well, please. No. Oh, hi. No, I said no. Rags, we can pay attention. What up my orphans doing goodio. Thank you. Go jackboxTV, put it in the code and you should be good to go. But yeah, just so everyone knows, right? So you have to watch metal stream to see what t-shirts are made and vote on them once you've actually made them. There is a timer on metal screen. You gotta submit your picture before that runs out. He's probably gonna do his best to give us an inkling of where that is. The way it works is you choose a background, you draw, and then you hit the tick when you're done, and you get three drawings cited to vote on what's bloody.  Shit, man. Love your way for the hot dog. Sausage radar. Oh, a new challenger appeared. Another colorized one. Is that the one you had to perfect for so long? I gotta get the nose just dry. Just dry. By the piss, I was born. By the piss, I was killed. Amen. Fuck. Amen? Amen. Okay. I'm voting for that just because he said amen. Oh no, amen are coming.  That's what I like is we don't know who's the boss and who's the human. I know. That's the first thing that popped up on my on the second draw and second tissue that I have to make is like, that's perfect. This, ladies and gentlemen, is where art school gets you. Oh no. Oh, you get the side. That one free. It's my picture and my slogan. What's funny is it's one of, it's my second round picture with my third round slogan. I didn't actually connect them. Happy son doesn't know morality. Son does not care for your human concepts of morality. Any humans are sleeping today? People who know how to draw stop drawing good.  It's funny. The trick to this game isn't necessarily drawing good. It's drawing with clarity. Just so that we can get what the picture is. That's why I always do stickman because that's like how clear. That's why, like we knew in an instant that was Hitler pissing into his own. It was so clear. Emotional. Everything about that is. Those two nostrils might be eyes. The two things above it are just something else. We need to save the shirt from this round because this round wasn't really good. The thing is none of these can be ones that I could buy because they don't work. Just wear them in public.  Every day we stray further from God's light. Oh, I won.  What is a good drawing? We should have a whole podcast discussing what makes a good drawing. At least five lines and some blue. Oh, Batman. Do you feel like you're in charge? Do Vader now. Do Vader. Oh, Luke Skywalker. Nailed it. It's like, dad, why are you talking weird?  What are you talking about? This is how I always talk. There's nothing unusual about the way I speak. The emperor hasn't driven the light side from you fully. I was born in the dark. When the rebels are ashes, you have my British spy. 69 viewers. Oh, that's like the sexual thing. No, it's just a number, you freak.   Mexican Halloween. And then you see in the background, like everyone is like nodding and agreeing. And then later on in the episode, he does say he's giving her a Mexican Halloween. It's the implication alone. You're like, why, why Mexican Halloween? What is Halloween?  There's people who are watching the stream like, why is nothing happening now? It's like, we're drawing things. God. It's like, can I see it? It's like, no, you can't see it. It'll spoil it.  I'm objectively excited. Nice. You have to pay $7 to get one at random. That fits so perfectly. Put on your sexy shoes. You know what's so great about that? It's my drawing. Someone else's slogan and they just, they were like, what is happening in that picture? I don't know, but I drew it. I'm sorry that I drew it. I'm starting to enjoy it. What is that? Carl. What's funny is that these are both, these are both my subtitles. Which one's better? I couldn't even vote. They're both so good. It's like that says Carl. With a penis, MonkaS. This stream has an unusual number of cogs. You say that now. Oh, I thought that was a dragon. I wanted that. I like we have a solid Mexican theme. That was my attempt at drawing a Mexican Halloween. Is he shooting a drone? I like how passed with drawing a Mexican. All we do is just a normal person with a silly hat. These are Mexican, right? They wear these big hats with a drone. Mexican Halloween is shooting a drone. Oh, no. Celebrate. I am not the Mexican Monka. I have a hat with an M on it. I love the idea. He has a girlfriend who keeps calling him Mexican. He's like, I'm Italian. No, no, no. You're Mexican blumba. I am Italian. I'm the Mexican man. Mama mia. I don't know. You have the mustache and the hat. I'm assuming that could possibly be another drawing for a Mexican Halloween. Did you just assume gender rights? That's money. I hope it's money. I hope it's money. No, no, no. That's gender fluid. Oh, no. Lord of mercy. Was that what was coming out of the ethernet cable, gender fluid? He's confused and aroused. Why is he pointing again? I thought he was holding a gun. It's like the death of the author. You can choose whatever you want. He's holding a gun to the poop.   That excessively long time. The way is his time.  Steve looks like he's into it.  It's a ghost. That is a word of art.  I'm going to take a bite out of that. That was so toxic. That was too much.  It's like an Italian caption. It's a Mexican crab walk. I'm exhausted. I don't know why that gets to be so much Mario being upset the people calling him Mexican. So now they only have to try how many letters is there in the English alphabet? 20 seconds. That sounds like such a retarded question, but in fitness it makes sense coming from a Swedish. Yeah, we have we have extra letters. I just like imagine the scenario with someone saying, wait, how many numbers are there? The numbers? How many numbers are there? How many numbers? How was the biggest number they invented? Oh, that would be one million. He's like, what about two million?   Are they wasted? I agree. All they had to do was have Tywin be the bad guy instead of being the guy who walks around and says one thing every once in a while. If you have him explain like procedural elements of safety he would be more enticing than anything that happens with the human parts. It is important to fasten your seat belt. In the event of an emergency please secure your own oxygen mask before securing the oxygen masks of another. The fire exits are located here and here.  Are you an automated airplane? Oh, God. No, sir, I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to get automated airplane. Oh, wow. That's a good drawing.  I drew a peepee. Where did he stick that finger? That's my question. Both the slogan and the picture might do better with different slogans and pictures. They work well enough on their own, but still.  I was about to say that could be so good, but it's Mexican Halloween for example. Wow. Oh my God, it got 50-50. Oh my God. I realized he was watching a flimple dingus. The flimple dingus always works. That's terrible. This person worked so hard to draw Squidward. Poor Squidward. Goodbye, Squidward. It was a good run. He lost that. I love the music in that fight. What was the bully on us?  He has to make a choice. Better be incredibly racist. Well, they're both coming for him, but he doesn't know what it means. I wasn't watching it either.  So much wrong with that. I don't know, man.  That's actually my shirt. I'm so proud of that one. It's so weird. Terrifying. I still don't know if that's pee pee tips or boobs or eyes. I don't know. That was exactly my point. It can't be his face. It can't be something else. Help. So simple. Just help. I'm so proud of that picture. I've never drawn something that weird in my life.  Why does he have... What is going on there? He's presenting him a trophy. A trophy of a kind.  I don't understand. I don't understand. When you wrote that, were you thinking about a spongebob erection? Obviously.


We're incredibly thrilled to have, as I've already put it, superstar economists and the it couple of the world of economics. I don't know how much competition there is, but even if there were a lot of competition, I'm sure that you all would still win. So we have Justin Wolfers and Betsy Stevenson here. They've flown in from Michigan. They're both now economists and professors of public policy at the University of Michigan. They have all kinds of other affiliations with the Brookings Institution, with University of Pennsylvania, with Princeton, and the National Bureau of Economic Research and have done incredible work on marriage, on happiness within marriage, on the way in which marriage influences the economy and also the way in which the economy and public policy influence behavior within marriage. We talked today about specialization in marriage when one spouse stays at home or is a secondary earner and one is the primary earner and they've done all kinds of great work on economic forces and so how we're responding is families to changes in the economy and to policy and how we're being shaped by those policies as well. So just to continue the conversation from the last panel, so let's talk about marriage as an economic unit. Marriage as an economic deal, say, between a man and a woman. I mean, that's what Simone de Beauvoir characterized marriage as this deal in which the man was the provider and the woman would bring all sorts of other resources, childbearing services, housekeeping services, sexual services, and that was the fundamental deal of marriage and it's primarily an economic unit. And so is that true? You know, Gary Becker won Noble Prize in Economics for bringing economics outside of standard questions and into things like family behavior and he started off by characterizing marriage as having enormous amounts of value because of the fact that people were more productive when they were in a marriage than when they were apart. So really giving the example, just like Adam Smith talked about the pin factory being more productive but through specialization, he explained that families were more productive because they could engage in specialization. So if a man and a woman were separate and they were trying to provide all the things for themselves separately, they would have less than if they did it together. And this was the big justification for marriage. And what we've seen over time is that benefit of marriage has been eroded, eroded enormously. And in fact, if that was really the only benefit of marriage or if that was really where we still saw marriage today, I think we would have seen much bigger declines in marriage than we've actually seen. And so what we've argued instead is that marriage has really transformed from being about, you know, producing more together to something that's fundamentally different which is enjoying life more together. So we call that consumption complementarities but it's about two people being together getting more out of life because they're together, not necessarily producing more because they're together. I mean, to say that a little bit in English, what Betsy's suggesting is the radical idea that marriage has moved from fundamentally being about producing more stuff together. This new idea, she called consumption complementarities, sometimes called hedonic marriage, it's actually just the idea that maybe it's about love and it's about enjoying doing stuff together. The economic toolkit, which often thinks about the production side of things, how we can do more together than we could do apart, we have to reshape that toolkit for thinking about what marriage is today. Another way of reframing everything Betsy just said, I think we agree on everything, is to suggest, and this is like a super economist way of looking at things but it's not crazy when you think about it, whenever we can achieve stuff through markets, we tend to do that. So I just bought my lunch, I bought it from a restaurant, I flew on a plane this morning, I bought that plane flight from US Airways. And a lot of what marriage historically was doing was filling in for missing markets, stuff you couldn't buy. If you couldn't buy it, you had to produce it at home in the family factory. And so the stuff that the family factory used to produce would be stuff like you'd sew your children's clothes, you'd make dinner, Liza used the delicate term sexual services, child care was also produced in the home. And what's changed is that the reach of the market has gone a lot deeper. So it used to be that my grandmother would sew clothes for my mother. And so clothes were something you'd produce in the family firm. And the natural seamstress, the person you'd hire would be the wife, well, dad went off, my grandfather went off to work. Today my family firm, Betsy and I employ a seamstress but it's actually someone in China rather than being done within the family firm. And so what's happened is a lot of these markets, the reach of the market has substantially increased to the point that we buy our clothes, now it's much cheaper to buy them from China. Fresh food, it's much easier to just drop off at Trader Joe's than to have a family chef, which previously would have been the wife's role. We've also seen another important role of families was actually there wasn't a lot of social protection if you lost your job. For instance, one of the functions of families was that if I lost my job, hopefully my inlaws would help us out. Of course with the rise of the welfare state, that's another role that was historically played by families that now is increasingly that this isn't the reach of the market, now it's the reach of the welfare state, which has sort of crowded out some of the historic roles that families played. Let me interject with just a little bit of I think what the changes were because you started by saying missing markets and then you gave some examples that I think to a lot of people wouldn't think the market was missing. Your grandmother could have bought clothes if she wanted to. So why is it that women thought it was a good deal to stay home and sew 50 years ago and now sewing is a luxury thing to do because it's very expensive to sew your own clothes compared to going to the store and buy them. The change in trade has really had an enormous impact on families because it means that you can find somebody who can make clothes much, much more efficiently than a stay at home spouse can. That's one of the reasons why we're trading with people all over the world and finding people who are focusing on what they can do most efficiently and that increase in trade has really eroded a lot of the benefits of having a household specialist but it's not just the change in trade, it's also been enormous technological changes. We take for granted when we go to the grocery store now that we might say, somebody says, you know, I'm going to make a cake, you know, the last time you made a cake, how many of you started with flour, eggs, butter, you know, what most people do now is they go to the store and they buy a cake mix. So even when you're making a cake, you're starting with something that's been pre-done in the factory. If you go back to, there was a grocery store that went in when these pre-made cakes were first introduced and asked women how many of them had ever made a, you know, a cake out of a box and, you know, they found like 5% had and now they went back in as part of some big anniversary in the last couple of years and asked women in the grocery store how many of them had made a cake from scratch and they got about 5% of them had ever made a cake from scratch, right? So there's been this just enormous change in how we cook and those changes, those technological changes have also reduced the value of specialists because lots of people, even myself who never learned how to cook, can follow the, you know, the directions on the back of a Trader Joe's box of box to Indian food to heat it up. I can follow the directions on a cake mix and usually not have it go flat. So you don't need as much of a specialist. I don't need to be making cake every week in order to turn out a reasonable cake once a year for my kid's birthday and the same thing is true with laundry. It actually used to be incredibly difficult to do laundry. And now it's really easy to do laundry. You can even put it all in together and put these color sheets in, right? So reds and whites can go together now. And so the need of having somebody who has the skills of a homemaker has really diminished over time. Yeah. So the other way of saying what Betsy just said is housework became so simple that even a man could do it. Well, although, although what we see, I mean, now that more and more men are getting involved in kitchens and getting involved in cooking is that kitchens are becoming incredible showcases for all sorts of tools. Then you need your flamethrower for the crème brûlée. And so it's some people would argue that just as men started becoming more involved in domestic spaces, these domestic spaces became really nice. Well, let me get some data on that just because now what we've seen what's really interesting is that, you know, over the last about 40 years, women's production inside the home has fallen by nearly 13 hours a week and men's has risen by nearly five. So that's a huge closing of the gap and it's coming both from women doing less and men doing more. Right. Right. But what's interesting to me about specialization and it's interesting also how inflammatory a topic specialization is that there, for example, I wrote in this Atlantic piece about same sex relationship that a surprising percentage of same sex couples with children will specialize in that one person will be a non-earner and the other person will earn and immediately you start getting like blog posts saying that's not true. That's not true. That's not people don't specialize. It sort of has a bad name. I think at least sort of liberal progressive ideas about how families should work. But why do you think it is that in a kind of surprising percentage of same sex couples specialization does actually happen when children come into the equation? Well, let me say I think every single household engages in specialization. Specialization doesn't have to mean one person stays home and one person works. The whole point we're saying is there's so much less to do in the household today that you don't need that kind of extreme specialization. In our household, we specialize. I do all the bills and all the taxes and manage all the money. And I have no idea how much money I have. And Justin deals with all the technology. I can barely turn that go. Every time I get on the treadmill, I'm like, how does this TV turn on again? So we do specialize. I think every household does. It becomes much more complicated when you have we have a three-year-old and an eight-month-old. So then now you need a lot more household production. And some people, many people are going to find that one person should be specializing in the three-year-old and the eight-month-old. And that's why you see people taking time out of the market. And it comes with a lot of baggage, I think, for women. And maybe one of the things you see in same sex couples is it doesn't come with quite as much baggage. But the other thing is that I think people realize that it can be incredibly efficient to take that time out when you have small kids like I have if you're only looking at today. But if you actually look at what happens to your wages over the next 40 years, it's an incredibly costly thing to do. And a lot of people don't do that. I'm sorry, what's costly to stay? To take time out of the labor force. You never get those wages back. You will never be at the same place at age 50 that you would have been if you hadn't come out of the labor force.  You come back in at a lower wage. And you're never going to reach the peak that you would have reached before, sort of no matter how hard you work. So the losses of staying home are not just the wages you give up today, but they're the promotions that you don't get in the future. And that's interesting because when I interviewed you for the first time for my book, Betsy was in town. She was getting ready to start as chief economist for the Department of Labor and you had one young child at that point. And I know you were at Penn and you were taking care of the child. And Betsy had taken the train down and she had an interview that day. And you were looking for your housing. So you were interviewing with me at the same time that you were looking at your housing and getting used to your neighborhood and you had to be on the train to get back and you were incredibly multi-tasking. But one of the things that we talked about was, and this I think plays into the work-family conversation that's going on so widely now, is that when you were talking about a friend who felt like she wasn't making enough to justify the childcare that she was going to have to pay in order to continue working. And so she was thinking, maybe I should just stop working. Maybe I just, and I think women have this calculation much more than men do. Maybe because it's my salary and so if I'm not making enough. And your argument, which rings so true to me, and both Anne-Marie Slaughter and Sheryl Sandberg have made it, is that if you keep your foot in the door, even if it feels like you're not making enough to make it worthwhile, it will be worthwhile later if you think of your careers in investment. I think for a lot of women that's true. And for a lot of women they are working for negative pay when they have those small kids, right? If they stepped out of the labor force, particularly married women, they stepped out of the labor force, they didn't pay the taxes, they didn't pay the cost associated of working, including childcare.  But they've got to take that dynamic approach to figure out whether it's a good choice or a bad choice. I think there's actually three components to that. So one is every year that you're in the workforce, you become a slightly better worker. So that's maybe worth a couple of percent. We economists call that returns to experience. Every year you stay with your employer, you become better adept at navigating internal bureaucracies and you become more effective within that firm. We call that returns to tenure. And so if you're not at work, you're not accumulating any of those. And that's worth maybe five percent of your salary, but it's worth that for the rest of your life. And then particularly for very highly educated white collar jobs, this is third issue, which I think is a signaling issue. There's no woman on partner track at a leading law firm or a woman on tenure track at a leading university who'll feel comfortable getting pregnant before they've reached partner or tenure. And the problem is, those who vote on these decisions see the choice to step out of the workforce as being a signal about your future commitment to the career. If you're the type of woman who take time off, then you're also the type of woman who's not going to work too hard once we make you partner. And as a result, women fear, I think rightly, that it's not a great decision before stepping out of the workforce is not a great decision before others are going to make these sort of very large career decisions on your behalf.  So I think the way to think about this is that our life expectancy has increased so much that people have decades in the labor force. And so when you step out, you're thinking about, you've got to think about what are going to be the effects of stepping out today for all your remaining time in the labor force. When women used to think about this, the vast majority of married couples had small children in their home. In 1880, 75% of married couples had children in the house. It's less than half today. In fact, I think it's about 40% of married couples have children in their home. So the majority of married couples don't have children. And that's not because we aren't having kids. It's because there's this period from becoming an adult at 20 to potentially working until you're 70, 75, that's 50, 55 years. Look, ideally, it would be great to spend more time with your kids when they're 0 to 8.  They're not as interested in hanging out with you. The great thing about 3 is they really want to hang out with you. So that's when you want to be around. But our whole labor force is not very conducive to people who say, I'm going to take five years out. It's funny that when you say that, when you talk about how long our careers are and how long life is, you think, well, why not then take three years out or five years out? And I've heard, actually, again with the same sex reporting that I did, I was interviewing a lesbian couple. And lesbian couples are less able to specialize because women's wages are lower. And so they're less able to afford just having one person work and the other person stay home. But one of the women I was talking to said, if I could afford it, I would definitely stay home with my kids because what's three years? What's four years? But you're saying that actually it's. The problem is when those three and four years are, you know, I will tell you that I do sometimes think it with glee. I hope that my daughter has children when I'm about 65 and I will happily retire and be her nanny.  There is something joyful about staying home with kids, but it's really when you're doing it at the peak of your career, it can be very costly. I mean, the cost is it's just the cost is great because you're going to knock off your future wages for a heck of a lot longer than you once did. That's sort of the cost benefit. And to put it in just in terms, it's a time where you're actually rapidly gaining experience. Right. When you're rapidly gaining those returns to tenure. And we also know that most wage gains come from actually changing jobs, getting an offer in a new firm. And those are, you know, new employer. Those offers tend to come most when you're at that age where people might want to take some time out. But these ideas are not crazy, by the way, which is from an income perspective, the right thing to do is stay home, but stay home with your grandchildren. Because you're harming the future career you're not going to have because you're going to retire anyway. Actually, you see a lot of that in the African-American community. And in the Latino community as well. A lot of the women I interviewed. And so there's an open question as to whether we're going to see that become a more mainstream trend. Grandparents as the... I'm going to stay home. I'm just going to stay home in 30 years time. Right, right, right. That's interesting, yeah. And so let's talk about, the Pew Research Center had this really fascinating report a couple of weeks ago about that 40% of mothers are the primary breadwinners in their households, which is incredibly significant. But Betsy, you and I have also talked about, regardless of whether or not women are breadwinners, they're contributing more than ever before in terms of family wages. I mean, contributing much more to the family coffers than they ever have. And that that changes dynamics within marriage. And can you all talk about how that changes in dynamics within marriage? Well, let's first talk about this sort of... What's been going on with marriages? And one of the reasons we're ending up with so many women who are out earning. And really, when we were talking about why marriage is changing and one of the implications of how marriage is changing is that it's become much more appealing for highly educated women and it's become much less appealing for less educated women. So college educated women used to be the least likely to marry. If you look at women born in 1900 by age 50, 76% of the college educated women had married compared to 90% of the high school graduates. That is now flipped on its head with the college graduate women who are more likely to marry. But it's not, you know, you hear these people say this is somehow because of the erosion of morals, perhaps, among high school graduates. That's not what's going on at all. If you look, you see that it used to be the case that women who had a college degree were the majority of whom did not agree with the statement married people are happier. The majority of women, college graduate women did not agree with that. There was a huge gap. Most high school graduate women thought you'd be happy if you were married. Most college graduate women thought you wouldn't be. And now that's also flipped. Today, most college graduate women think you will be happy if you're married and less, around a third, only around a third of high school graduate women agree with that statement that marriage makes people happy. So it's real change in how people perceive marriage and what marriage is doing for them has led to different types of people marrying. So let's just explore the logic of that.  So you had no particular skills in that domain so you weren't particularly marriageable from the husband's side. And from your own side, you had the ability to go out and earn your own income just fine. And so what he was offering in that deal wasn't that attractive either. So that was sort of the old specialization-based model of marriage. What we think is happening is this movement towards what Betsy called hedonic marriage. I called love. And this is when you enjoy spending time and money together. Well, who has time and money? Actually, it's those who are financially better off. And so this is part of the logic for why marriage has become a much more attractive forum for particularly well-educated women and working class women instead of finding that they may not have the time and money to enjoy the partnership.  And so marriage then becomes somewhat less attractive to them. When I first started studying economics, there's this classic parable they talk about about husband and wife have to decide what to do on a Saturday night. The husband likes to go to the fight. The woman likes to go to the opera and then they forget to plan so they have to figure out where to go. And it's this little parable you learn. And what is funny about that parable is it describes the 1950s marriage. When men and women specialized, they also had very different interests. So just in choosing this word love, love has a lot of different definitions in the world. But what I really specifically mean is people who like to do the same stuff together.  That is just not a good match because a lot of the benefits from marriage are coming from doing stuff together that you enjoy doing.  And this has led, as we said, to more college educated women marrying. Now we've got to combine this with the other trend that's happening, which is college men used to outnumber women like two and a half to one. And now women outnumber college men like 1.4 to one. So we're having a real sea change in who the college graduates are in our society. And with women getting all those skills, they're going to get the wages and that's going to change the dynamics. I just want to add, if anyone's interested in a great research topic, I mean, what's going to happen to the generation of college educated women, which in recent years, college educated women marry college educated men. There aren't that many college educated men left. So either standards are going to change or an alternatively phrased marriage is going to change. What are these people's understanding of marriage? Or we're going to see a very sharp decline in marriage among the highly educated. I don't have a clue what it is. I just think it's one of the more important social trends out there and there aren't enough people thinking about it. This is a really big deal. The unemployment rate in May, just this past month, for college graduates was 3.8%. 3.8%, right? For high school graduates, it was 7.4. College graduates have jobs and they earn twice as much as high school graduates. So you've got them earning more, earning more when they're working and twice as likely to not be unemployed. So it's more likely to be at work. It's leading to very different types of families and I agree with Justin. I think what's going to happen to the college graduate women who don't find college graduate husbands and how are those marriages going to work? Are we going to see men willing to, maybe we'll see resurgence of specialization with men doing more of the household tasks or are we going to see a group of women who have very unstable marriages? Or don't marry. Or don't marry, right? Yeah, right. I have to just read this. You all, since you're in Michigan, you might not have seen it, but over the weekend, the Washington Post Outlook section ran this incredible letter. The Washington Post long time restaurant reviewer, Phyllis Richmond, who's retired now and was looking through her, she was looking through some stuff in her basement and she found this letter in 1961 when she was a graduate of Brandeis and she was married and she applied to the graduate program in urban planning at Harvard. And she got a letter from a professor and he addressed her as Mrs. Alvin Richmond. And he said, to speak directly, our experience even with brilliant students has been that married women find it difficult to carry out worthwhile careers in planning and hence tend to have some feeling of waste about the time and effort spent in professional education. This of course is true of almost all graduate professional studies. I never knew if he meant that all women who go into all studies feel a waste or that every graduate student feels like there's waste. But he said, therefore for your own benefit and to aid us in coming to a final decision could you kindly write up as a page or two at your earliest convenience indicating specifically how you might plan to combine a professional life and city planning with your responsibilities to your husband and a possible future family. And she never replied to that letter because she was so intimidated by being asked to justify how as a wife she could possibly make use of her graduate training. So, but she ended up writing this incredible letter now 50 some years later that said, well actually here's how I did it. And I had to follow my husband around and I wasn't able to go into urban planning but I found that journalism and restaurant viewing was something I could do at night and I found college students who would watch my kids and they would live in the basement or the attic and so I could get some time and I just somehow made it work but I was so intimidated by your letter that I never went into that career path and she sent it to him and he's still at Harvard and he wrote her back a letter and it basically, it didn't say I'm sorry, it didn't say I made a mistake, it said well you know back then it actually was really hard for married women to have a career. And I was just struck by what on so many levels what a liability for a woman being married was in the 1960s, I mean she was college educated woman but just in terms of having, it was just such a reminder of where the discouragement came from and now it's just extraordinary how the relationship between marriage and sort of your economic prospects has changed. Yeah, I mean we're still having a conversation though that I think the social change is still occurring because when I talk to people about work family you hear people who will recognize and who will talk about this is the only way we can really make fundamental changes is if this is a parent issue and not a women's issue but too many times I hear people talk about it as a women's issue and it's not a women's issue, it's a parent issue and I feel like we just have not, we're not all the way from that letter that we need to go if we're going to have women play an equal role in the labor force and I think when we look at the training that our women are getting when we look at their completing college degrees at greater rates, they're getting better grades, they're coming out of college, I told you the unemployment rate of college graduates, that's the total unemployment rate for all college graduates. If you look at recent college graduates, the unemployment rate's much higher but I'll tell you something that's really shocking. For recent college graduates the unemployment rate was 16.1% for men and 11.2% for women. So those women are graduating college and they're diligently looking for their jobs. Women are really pursuing things, these young women, they're pursuing it in high school, they're pursuing it in college and apparently they're pursuing those jobs as soon as they graduate. We can't afford to ostracize them from our labor market. We're investing too much in them and in order to make sure that our labor market is productive, as it can be, we're gonna have to make sure that we have a plan in place to keep them active and I think one of those plans is gonna have to be recognizing that work family is parent issue, not a women's issue. I think if you look at the, how women are doing in college, you know, grades, college completion, right? Betsy just talked about employment as well. I can imagine Betsy writing the equivalent letter today. Dear sir, it's come to our attention that you're a man. There is a big puzzle, what's going on with young men? Right, you know, we far into that male college student. Don't use their effort. Drink a lot, drop out, and don't work. Right, right, so could you justify your interest in pursuing graduate studies with us, yes? I think, mildly more seriously, you talked about that letter, the marker there was that that woman was married. I think the marker today is probably children. So I'm gonna take the field I know best, which is academic economics, and if you asked me that leading 20 female economists in the world, I would guess half to two thirds of childless. And again, somehow this is a marker of something, I'm not quite sure why. But certainly, I think there are still pretty big issues about how parenthood, but motherhood, motherhood, I mean motherhood here, how motherhood is perceived in the like market.  And, you know, I went to a conference and gave a talk when my now son was.  No, no, no, my son was like maybe eight weeks, maybe 12 weeks, really early on. And so he was really on the breast. And I was giving a talk for Claudia Golden, who was like one of the most amazing scholars of women's labor force participation. Claudia knows that I'm coming with this, that I'm gonna give this talk at her big event and that I've got this new baby.  And so I did, I brought my baby and I breastfed in the back of the conference room. And now a woman who's about a decade older than me was horrified that I would actually, I was like, I've got a little apron thing, you can't see anything, but you know, I gotta walk out, I can't listen to the conference if I've got a breast feeder every two hours, I'm gonna be in and out, in and out, up to my hotel room. And I think the, I am a very aggressively out breast feeder. And I think that that's a real change. I think, you know, but I think that that's part of what we have to do because I think there's too many women who didn't want to acknowledge the, I don't know if you'll call it burdens, but the realities of having a newborn. And I think we, you know, we need to, we need to have public policy that accommodates them. And you know, it's one of, I think the greatest things in the Obama healthcare law was the paid, or not paid, sorry, shouldn't say paid, it's not paid, but the break, the required break for nursing moms where they have to be provided a room, it cannot be a bathroom, and they must be provided the breaks to express milk. And that's revolutionary in our country. So let me ask for questions now. I think we've got about 10 minutes. So we'd love to have some questions. Yeah, the first one that went up was in the beige shirt halfway back. Do you mean like going part-time? Or yeah. So I haven't done any of this work, but it's actually really hard to look at what are the causal effects. So we can look at on average what happens to women. But what we, you know, that really mixes up what types of people are willing to go part-time, what types of people are willing to step out, what types of people go full steam ahead. There was a really nice paper that I saw where what they did was actually looked at how long it took people to get pregnant, and was looking at sort of how much career experience had they had before. They had a baby based on this phenomenon, which is still the fact that we can't perfectly plan our pregnancies, and really saw that just the act of being able, just having your pregnancy delayed led to big gains in your wages, looking 20 or 30 years later. And that effect would put it all together. That would put us together, the people stepping out as well as the people going part-time. Meaning that the older you were when you had your child, the better you did wage was? Yeah, the better, because basically when you have your kid, the higher you are on sort of that wage curve as you're getting these gains in your wage from more and more experience, the higher you are on that when you have your first kid, the higher you're likely to rise. So I just want to add something which is surely it varies a lot across occupations. So you're only talking about rather than stepping out, powering down for a little bit. And the way we organize different occupations, I'm told you can't be a law partner unless you work in 100 hours a week. And surgery, knife before wife, you can't be a surgeon unless you're always on call. But somehow vets can do it and somehow obstetricians can do it. And I'm not quite sure I understand what it is that flips these occupations, but if you look at how obstetrics is organized, it shows that a lot of occupations where we'd previously thought you had to be 100% on 100% of the time, just turns out that's just not true. And we can reorganize work in a way that allows people to be part-time or work family-friendly hours, things like that. Yeah, I should say I would think about that. This work by Claudia Golden and Mary Amber Trond, and they look at occupations and it does women do tend to gravitate towards occupations where the hit from either taking time out or just reducing your hours is much lower on your wages. So I think for a lot of people used to think that veterinary medicine has become almost 100% women because animals are cute and fuzzy and it's no longer about cows, it's about cats, but actually it's because you can work at 80% and you get 80% of the wages, whereas in lots of occupations you go to 80% and you are lucky to get 30% of the wages. And because emergency facilities are now standalone, so if you're gonna be doing vet work in the middle of the night, it's gonna be a different facility and you're not necessarily... More questions? Yes, right there on the aisle in the blue plaid shirt. Doesn't actually seem to be working. Can you hear me now? All right, what those types of trends have for the overall I guess egalitarian nature of society and globally like a lot of these things are now being made in China and like a Foxconn factory in a Bangladeshi factory that just collapsed a couple days ago. So it's like here in America and in our interpersonal relationships, we may be benefiting from this more egalitarian spirit of interpersonal connections, but what are the broader social egalitarian like implications of the rise of, or change in dynamics of interpersonal relationships? Yeah, so the difference between my grandmother's household and mine is my grandmother would sew clothes and then my mother would wear them. In ours, we go to the store and we buy them made in China. What that's done is it's freed up Betsy to live an enormously more interesting professional life than my grandmother had. And it means that a family in China now isn't hungry. I understand this as a controversial claim, but economic development in China has reduced the number of people living under $2 a day from 80% to below 10%. So I think this is one of the most egalitarian things that I can do. So economists often have strong views on trade. The alternative is I can leave someone unemployed. I'm not forcing anyone to work in a factory. I'm offering them the opportunity to move off their family farm where they face the possibility of hunger to move into the city and working in the factory. And I'm offering them the choice and the person who thinks that exploitation won't offer them that choice. And I think it's on their conscience if those people end up unhealthy, if their children end up dying in the fields. I think that we economists tend to really wanna pursue efficiency gains. And these increases in trade have definitely increased world output. Everybody has gotten more, but we should think about how then if the pie got bigger for the whole world, how's the pie being divvied up? Those can be very separate questions. And I think Justin's strongly saying, don't advocate for things that would make the pie shrink. We need to keep the pie big, but I think we can ask the separate questions, which is are there better ways to divide it? But I don't think that keeping women in the home is the way to help get those slices more evenly divided. Yeah, so I think we'll also just, if both of you, starting with the gentleman in the tie and then the woman in the gray sweater, just state your comments or your questions. And then if we have time, we'll field them. Yeah, thank you so much. So I heard the story about two economists, and I'm not entirely sure if it's true, that were walking through the Swiss Alps and they were looking at some family farms where there were some potatoes being grown. And one economist turns to the other and says, this is a very inefficient way to grow potatoes. You can do it a lot better than this. And the other economist looks back at him and says, you're right, but this is a very efficient way to grow people. And in other words, that there's sort of non pecuniary benefits to certain kind of family structures. And you've talked about how there's been sort of changes in the goods that are provided by marriage, so that no longer is marriage providing the sewing and these sorts of things. And it's just sort of reduced now to doing things that you like to do together. Are there also non pecuniary costs to that? And has there been some study on that that you'd be willing to comment on? Okay, so we'll take the next question and then hopefully we can have a chance to respond. I think the portrait you've portrayed of marriages, especially middle class marriages is a little, it's somewhat inaccurate. That is a lot of middle class families don't just divide, it's not just one person works and one person stays home. What in fact happens is to achieve work-family balance, they hire someone else and this goes back to the question that this other person raised. A lot of the people that they're hiring because America has a almost near complete lack of socialized things like childcare and elder care and after school care, we hire foreign people. In other words, it's not just foreign labor doing labor in their home countries, it's foreign labor coming here, women especially migrating, leaving their own children behind with dubious arrangements so that they can pour love into our children. And this is a global imbalance that I think really needs to be addressed. Maybe some of it is gonna be addressed in the immigration bill if it ever passes and some of these women are able to migrate legally which will undoubtedly improve their situations. But I think it's really important, I mean most of the families you've talked about are middle class families and I think it's really important to think about the position of working class families in terms of care work. That's really one of the things that can be marketized but when it is, it's really complicated and often very unequal. So the children respond. Yeah, I wanna dispel one myth because people have this fantasy of sort of like the 1960s, 1950s marriages where the women stayed home and took care of the kids that the kids got all this time with their parents. Parents spend more time with their kids today than they did back then. Both moms and dads and it's more true the gains in time with kids has been even greater among highly educated women who are even more firmly entrenched in their careers. And what we see is parents are spending more time with their kids. So there's more actual family time where that's mom, plus dad, plus kid. So I don't think that we've necessarily sacrificed some idealic vision of parents spending time with their kids. I'll take a quick bite at the other question which is about non-pecuniary costs of changing marriage which is simply to say I think you're asking exactly the right question. When economists think about this stuff we aren't just thinking about dollars and cents. We are trying to think about the full range of things and what we've described is the ways in which marriage is adapted to the changing economy. I think the rest of the whole vibrant debate that exists around marriage is very much about what are these non-pecuniary costs and benefits. The only note, and this would be things like how well are we doing raising our children. And the only thing I'd note is I am struck by how little we still know despite the fact that it's a vitally important and interesting question. Well, thank you so much. This has been fabulous. You've been just a great audience. Thank you. Thank you for saying all afternoon and spending your afternoon with us. We really enjoyed it. Thank you.


and without much further ado we're moving into our very first category and let's see how much noise can you guys make. Very good. You're holding the fort for the front table otherwise it's always the back back benches. Very good. Two thumbs up. To do the honors for the very first category may invite on stage Ms. Sapan Geet Rajwant, Vice President Marketing Colors and Ms. Minali Shah Associate Director Corporate Marketing Southeast Asia Global Abbots. We're making up for the lack of women on our panel here with inviting all the women to give away the trophies here. So there were a lot of nominees in this particular category and the jury also wanted to encourage young talent 30 years and under so we have quite a few medals being given away in this particular category. Let's find out who the winners are. I'd like to firstly congratulate everybody in this category. It's a very very exciting category and because it's one opportunity for the jury to actually take a look at who's going to be shaping this business going forward and therefore it was a very very interesting category to judge. We've been as fair as we could. The list was long and the list was illustrious so I'd like to wish everybody both the nominees as well as the winners. Congratulations. How very first trophy did he sing? Can we hear it out loud? Although this period she has worked with various BFSI and e-commerce clients and handled many major accounts. A forte is coming up with strategies that are data and technology driven bringing in unparalleled efficiencies. A futuristic outlook has helped her to seamlessly achieve the business objectives for her clients. Unfortunately I'm told that Titi Singh couldn't be here tonight but we have her team member from Performix to be receiving the trophy on her behalf. Could we have the team member from Performix to please come up on stage and receive the very first trophy the second runner up for the rising star of the year. A tie for the second runner up let's find out who the second runner up winner for the rising star of the year is. Vikram is a big fan of his company and a couple of awards too. His scope of work spans across day-to-day planning and implementation across multiple brands to work with brand integration. So ladies and gentlemen as and when you hear your name being called out request you to please come up while the AV is playing. Let's find out who the next winner is. Kanika with an experience of over six years has worked on different product categories ranging from telecom FMCG to the automobile sector. She believes it's important to keep learning embracing new challenges and have faith in yourself. From initiative media trophies to be one let's find out who the next winner is. Pandya has over 10 years of experience spread across digital, IT and telecom. His work has been appreciated and won more than 36 awards nationally and internationally in just a year's time. Congratulations Akash Pandya find out who the winner of the rising star of the year category is.


Hi, it's It's extremely easy to create new circles to delete or remove circles to add people to circles and to remove people from Your circles, so let's see how to create new circle must you on this circle page You will see these friends and you will see these circles here so to create a new circle just click on the circle and Give it a name. Let's call text And you can see a new circle has been created here Now in order to add somebody to a circle all you have to do is Either find the person you want to add You can search for the person's name Look, so let's see. Let's assume. This is the person who I want to add to the circle So I'll just drag and drop that person to the circle and he's added to the circle similarly, I can add other people to the same circle I Can add one person to more than One circle I can add one person to all of my circle I can just drag and drop them and they will be added to all the circles You see That's how we add people to our circles and that's how we created a circle now If you want to delete a circle just the way we created this test circle if you want to delete a circle Just click on the test or whichever circle you want to delete and then Click on delete this circle. It will ask for the confirmation and you can delete the circle and It's gone Now you have these circles remaining now. You just saw how to add friends to Different circles now how to remove friends from a circle We'll move there later let's see how to Add somebody who is not in your friend list and you want to add that person to our circle So let's just do a test here. I just let's check this guy out He is in my circle, but I'm just removing him from a circle for a second Okay, now you see this is somebody who I want to add to my circle. You'll see this option here Click it and select the circles you want to add that person to and he will be added to all these three circles Now if you want if somebody is already in your circle Just the way this guy is in my circle and if you want to remove that person from the circle Just go to his profile page Hover your mouse on this circle and you can you can uncheck The circles from which you want to remove him and he will be removed from all the circles He's the best friend, so I'm not going to remove him. So I'm just adding him back So that's how you add people or remove people from the circles now What about mouse removal if there are a lot of people in let's see there are people in this circle Muktware authors and I want to remove some people from the circle I cannot go to everybody's profile and then remove them from there So I can remove people from a circle as well All you have to do is select on the name of the person and you'll see this remove button there And you'll click on the remove button that person will be removed all you will have to do is click on save and That person will be removed from your circle if you want to remove more than one person Hold the control key of a keyboard and select as many people as you want So you can select almost everybody here and then Click on their remote circle and these people will be removed. You can do more than that here. You can also block these people or You can select all if you want to remove everybody, which I don't think is needed Unless until you want to move them from one circle to the circle or whatever So that's how you Remove people from your circles Don't forget to click on save. Otherwise, it won't work so you have seen how you Create a new circle how you delete a circle how you add friends from the address book to a circle by just simply dragging and dropping How you can add somebody you don't know by going to their profile and then adding to a circle how you can add or remove an individual from your circles and how you can remove You know more than one person or how can you do mass removal or mass subscribe people to your circles? I hope this video is useful for you. Thank you