Ahoy Ahoy and welcome to the channel. I'm Dr. Sumerian, not a real doctor, and today we are going to talk about what makes or breaks a joke SCP. Now, first of all, we're going to talk a little bit about comedy in general. You can do comedy and have it be a mainstream serious work. And for the SCP Wiki, we can talk about main list SCPs. There are plenty and I'd like to think that a few of mine are funny and also main listers and there's plenty of SCPs on the Wiki that fit that mold. So is it funny is not in and of itself the only thing you need to worry about when it comes to the quality of work. And moreover, this is important too, because the standards of quality for comedy have gone down. I don't think they've gone down. I think they've always been low. But every new batch of young people come up with their own versions of cringe comedy. It's whatever is less acceptable socially right now. And they think to themselves, well, if I make someone laugh or I make them smile, I have succeeded at being funny. This is not true. Believe it or not, humans laugh and grin for reasons other than comedy. Comedy is the primary reason, but that's the problem with cringe comedy and trying to make it work. And then you sort of sort of mainstream remain in the SCP cases. Main listing or even a dash J is just not going to work because just because you made somebody laugh doesn't mean what you said was funny. You could have just made somebody uncomfortable and for all most people, not everybody, but most people uncomfortable leads to a smile, a grin or a laugh. They can really hate what you said and still laugh at it. But what we talk about when it comes to funny jokes on the SCP wiki or elsewhere is a subverting of expectations really in the end. I like to equate a dash J to a good joke or a good narrative twist. And you can do a narrative twist that isn't funny at all, but it follows the same sort of structure. A twist is a recontextualization of a past thing. So if you do a joke and let's just stay with a rant, let's we're going to be very basic here because I do not have time nor the expertise to be honest with you to talk about everything that makes a joke funny and like what is the fundamental concepts of comedy. You're not going to get that here. We're just talking about the SCP wiki and dash Js and specifically joke articles. But we talk about let's talk about rule of three, right? You do a joke that has a line, then another line that confirms the what's the word I'm looking for here, the reality of the joke, the the framing of the joke then becomes confirmed by your second line and then a third line which subverts everything. So you set up expectation, confirm that expectation and subvert that expectation. That's a standard rule of three joke. And a lot of these jokes come from a lot of these jokes are quite insensitive in general, because a lot of people will use like, you know, a blonde or redhead and a brunette or this nationality or this ethnicity and so on to make the expectations up, which is literally talking about stereotypes.  But it requires you, this is the thing requires you to establish your characters in some way very quickly. We can talk about when I say rule of three, it's not just useful for jokes. It's useful for writing as well, setting an expectation confirming that expectation and subverting it is exactly how you can best do a narrative twist, right? But not every article with a narrative twist is a joke. And not every joke follows a rule of three. There are other ones which are like a particularly funny concept treated seriously or a completely absurd thing that just continues on and on and on and on until it wraps back around to being funny. There are different ways to do this. But you may have noticed something as we talk about this comedy, none of it indicates that your articles are of less value and almost every version of it can be one to one compared to an actual serious thing. And herein lies the problem. Because when you define a joke as less than a main list or article, what you're saying is that, you know, we could do whatever we want to as long as it's a little bit funny that makes up for it. Absolutely untrue. First of all, whatever failings your article have are not going to go away just because you've switched it over to becoming a joke article. You can't be like, it's bad because the joke is that it's bad. No, that's not how it works.  Now, if they tell you this is funny, a lot of people use that phrasing as they stand in for this is funny. That is a terrible way to communicate that. And moreover, generally, this could be a dash J, but doesn't quite work as a main lister is the kind of advice that says to you. This has deep fundamental flaws, but don't bother fixing them. The joke or whatever is it about it else wise is good enough to make up for that. Well, guess what? If you keep whatever it is that makes the article good, and then go and fix the problems rather than giving up on it and saying, you know what? It's just a joke. You're going to have uneven, funnier article, and it may be appropriate for the main list. But if you just take that advice and say, all right, I guess I give up on it, it is what it is. It's a joke now.  And this is the reason why the vast majority of what I have written have been main listers. I've done a few dash J articles and they were they they meet a particular standard for me, which is the joke is important enough or funny enough for me to tell. And secondly, the setting or the setup for the joke is too ridiculous for main list, not of lower quality. And that's always been my standard for what makes a dash J a dash J. And there's the what is it, the procrastination rock. That could be there. There's no reason it has to be a dash J. The fact that it is a dash J makes it probably more popular rather than less. But it doesn't have to be that it could have been a main list or there's nothing about it that's particularly outrageous or silly. Well, I mean, that's the wrong way to put that. Of course, it's silly. But it's not silly in the same way that an article about a doctor redacted a agent expunged and a researcher black box working together. And that's their actual names is ridiculous and and silly. That version. And I think there is an article someone I was talking with somebody on Discord. And I think they mentioned that one of their articles actually has an agent redacted in it. And it's like part of a small joke. But and one character named that is already ridiculous. And I think personally pulls you out of the narrative. But having three characters with similar ish names all about redaction would of course be too silly to actually create a real article out of unless you justified it some way, which is entirely possible. They're core anomaly or something around the core anomaly could cause you to have those names, for example, then you've justified your thing. But you don't have to if that's not the purpose of your joke, which I believe the purpose of the joke for that was again, talking on discord and somebody mentioned this, or be like a who's on first sort of thing, like, Oh, you know, agent redacted. Oh, agent redacted. Yeah, yeah, agent redacted did it. Well, who's that? No, agent redacted did it. Who's that works in anti memetics, and that sort of thing. Obviously, that joke works. It's the who's on first thing. And again, this isn't my core. I should be clear. It's not a super original idea. But also, I didn't come up with it anyway, in this iteration. So just be clear about that. Also be very careful about like anything you just jokes are not open to steal any more than any other creative content is, by the way, don't steal jokes. If you hear a joke, and it's not yours, but you want to retell it, start with this isn't my joke or end with that wasn't my joke. Don't do the don't don't pretend like you're funny by stealing other people's funny. It's not cool. Anyway, that's a whole different aside. What I want to get through to people more than anything else is anytime you hear the phrase, this would work better as a dash j.  I I can imagine a world or an article where it's not a bad piece of feedback. But I can't actually imagine what what could inspire it in such a way, like I'm of course, there's probably an article, but I have no idea what it would be, because it's just a silly way to phrase things. It's saying, I have critique for this, but don't worry about it. That's terrible. Anyway, I thought about doing this video and doing the cliche thing of trying to be funny and inserting things here and there, and I was like, you know what, no, I'm going to take this as a serious examination. Also, my microphone, I believe the microphone cord is breaking, which is super bad. And I guess I need another one now. Um, hopefully there's no buzz or anything like that, because I was listening to it earlier, and there was a little bit of a buzz, but I think I think I cleared it up. I haven't touched it. I've stayed far away from it to make sure that I don't touch it. But if you notice the audio quality is a little lower in the next video, maybe because I'm using my backup microphone, which is a USB microphone. Anyway, that's it. Thank you very much for watching. If you enjoyed the video, hit the subscribe button, and then hit the notification bell next to that so you're notified when I upload new videos, and then head on over to patreon.com forward slash D Samarian and pledge at any level, like everybody here on the screen already has, I could really, really use your support, especially if I have to get a new cable for this microphone. That's an unexpected cost. Anyway, it's nice to know that I'm not alone out here, and I will see you all again on Tuesday.


ac Zeitge is tight, so I am moving on to the next side of a business, which is is a day at stage 3 on motion 17566, the name of Kevin Stewart on the fuel poverty, targets definition and strategy Scotland Bill. Members will recall that following consideration amendments last Thursday, the PM indicated he had determined that no provision of this Bill relates to a protected subject matter, therefore the bill does not require a super majority we've passed at stage 3. I therefore call on Kevin Stewart to speak to move the motion minister seven minutes, please. I'm very pleased to be opening this debate on the fuel poverty targets definition and strategy Scotland bill. From the outset, the bill has been a strong and ambitious piece of legislation and it has been improved through the legislative stages, through building consensus across Parliament and through consultation and engagement with stakeholders. We have established a challenging but, importantly, achievable target to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of households by 2040. We have changed the fuel poverty definition, ensuring a much closer alignment of fuel poor with income poor households. In the illustrative draft fuel poverty strategy, we have shown both the scale of the task ahead as well as some of the ways in which we can bring about change through taking actions across all four drivers of fuel poverty. I have some thanks to make, Presiding Officer. I'd like to very much thank all the officials who have been involved in the bill, particularly my excellent bill team and my private office. They should be proud of the role in this bill today. I'd also like to thank the local government and communities committee, James Dornan, Alex Rowley, Graham Simpson, Annabelle Ewing, Kenny Gibson, Alexander Stewart and Andy Wightman for their input as we have moved forward. Their scrutiny and engagement at stages 1 and 2 has improved the bill and I appreciate their constructive input throughout. Their stage 1 report included a number of recommendations that I was happy to act upon at stage 2, which have undoubtedly improved the bill. Other members, particularly Jackie Baillie, Liam McArthur and Dallister Allen, have paid close attention to the bill and I want to thank them for their contributions. Our positive dialogue has led to amendments that we have agreed on and have improved the bill. In light of the positive changes that this Parliament has made at stages 2 and 3, I believe that it would be useful for me to give an overview of precisely where we are actually at. The first thing to note is that the singular fuel poverty target originally within the bill title has now become multiple targets. The single metric of the proportion of households in fuel poverty in 2040 has been joined by targets for those in extreme fuel poverty and for the median fuel poverty gap with interim targets to get us there. On top of that, we have had the 2040 targets extended to each and every local authority area in Scotland. Of course, none of the bill's targets will have any meaning unless we have a comprehensive and accurate picture of fuel poverty throughout Scotland. To that end, I believe that the proposed new definition puts us in an excellent position. As I said earlier, the definition ensures a close alignment between fuel poverty and relative income poverty through the introduction of the income threshold based on the UK minimum income standard and the use of after housing costs income. Under the current definition, only around 60 per cent of fuel poor households are also income poor. Under the new definition, the proportion rises to over 70 per cent. The proportion of households in fuel poverty in both social and private rented sectors also show significant increases, alongside a rise in the number of families recorded as being fuel poor. Those are the kind of households whose circumstances are often poorly captured by the current definition. The more balanced picture of fuel poverty that the new definition presents has been further refined by innovations, including Jackie Baillie's amendment for disability benefits, to be deducted from a household's adjusted net income. The definition of extreme fuel poverty was one of the other major additions at stage 2, coming in response to stakeholder input and the recommendation of the committee. To complement it, we added in specific targets to reduce it. Remote, rural and island communities are at the heart of the other major change that we introduced at stage 2. That is the uplift to UK minimum income standard for households in those types of areas. In preparing the detail of our proposals, my officials worked closely with Professor Donald Hirsh of the Centre for Research and Social Policy at Loughborough University even. His team is responsible for producing the UK minimum income standard. I would also like to express my thanks to him for his invaluable contribution. The initial reactions that I have heard from rural and island stakeholders to our new uplift and also to our comprehensive island communities impact assessment for the bill have been very positive indeed. Finally, the decision to create a new statutory Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel was another measure that was recommended in the committee's stage 1 report. I was happy to support the subsequent amendments from Alex Rowley, which we improved on further last week. To conclude, I believe that the bill is in excellent shape and will help to ensure that the blight of fuel poverty is tackled with the seriousness and consistency of effort that it demands. I am also pleased that the bill has shown how working together with members from all parties discussing issues in advance and reaching a consensus has delivered improved legislation. We can be proud that this Parliament is world leading with this legislation. Scotland is only one of a handful of European countries to define fuel poverty, let alone set a goal to eradicate it. Achieving the target will place Scotland amongst the very best in the world in tackling fuel poverty. In that light, I move that the Parliament agrees that the fuel poverty targets, definition and strategy Scotland bill be passed. Thank you very much. There is no time in hand, but I ask those members who wish to speak in debate to press the request-to-speak buttons. Now I call Graham Simpson to follow by Alex Rowley. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I got a little bit confused at the weekend when I was thinking about this debate. A Twitter announcement from the SNP said, Here's what we're doing in government to make Scotland a fairer place to live, with a downward arrow pointing to a list of alleged achievements, the first being passed world-leading legislation to tackle fuel poverty. Which is what I thought we were here for today, Deputy Presiding Officer. In any case, I'm not sure the phrase world-leading is appropriate for a bill that started out at just six pages and was a lukewarm replacement for what we were originally promised, which was a warm homes bill. I said during the stage 1 debate that the bill originally lacked ambition. I had some pretty harsh words for it and they didn't go down well with everyone. My good friend Kenny Gibson got himself in a bit of a tiz, I seem to recall. He's not here just now to confirm that. One of the criticisms of the bill was its target of reducing fuel poverty to 5 per cent within 21 years. Some have argued that that's too far in the future, but now that we've amended it to include interim targets, I think we can be comfortable that at least we have something that's achievable and that's important. On a visit by the Local Government and Communities Committee to Stornoway, one of the bill's serious emissions was brought home to us. An emission that when using the minimum income standard referred to by the minister to define fuel poverty to reflect the higher costs incurred by people living in islands, remote towns and remote rural areas. Fuel poverty rates in urban Scotland have improved since 2015, but rates in rural areas haven't, so there's a widening gap. We faced a legislative vacuum and said so. Thankfully, the Government listened and amended the bill accordingly at stage 2. I think that we must ask ourselves when making law is this. Will this make a difference to anyone's life? If the answer is no, then you'd be right to wonder why on earth we would spend any time on it. I think that the bill was in that sort of shape when introduced, but we have a very different beast now. That's down to people co-operating across party lines and coming up with sensible proposals, as well as some not so sensible ones. Andy Wightman has brought forward amendments to keep the focus on all four drivers of fuel poverty. We will now have the Scottish Fuel Advisory Panel. The Labour Party introduced this to the bill, and it's a welcome addition. The panel will be an independent advisory panel that will keep the pressure on government. The panel will analyse the periodic reports that have been produced by the Government and give their own views on the progress that has been made and whether the fuel poverty targets will be met. It will be a statutory consultee. It's a significant layer of scrutiny that was previously lacking. Thankfully, the Government's decided that the funding for the panel can be much higher than originally suggested by Alex Rowley at just over four times there to be congratulated on that. It will make a significant difference to the tackling of fuel poverty and will keep the focus and scrutiny on meeting and hopefully exceeding the targets. The Government also listened to calls to target extreme fuel poverty specifically. Stage 2 amendments defined extreme fuel poverty and set both a final and an interim target for it, as well as for fuel poverty. That will prevent people living in extreme fuel poverty being left behind, a fear that many of us had with the target as it was originally published. As I said earlier, the Government also listened to concerns about the higher costs of energy for people living in Ireland and rural communities. I also felt strongly that the hard to reach homes in Scotland should not be forgotten about when dealing with national targets, so I introduced amendments that were accepted at stage 2 and some minor changes at stage 3 whereby the Government must be seen to be working to reduce fuel poverty in each local authority level and for the fuel poverty targets to be targets at the local level. However, I was very careful not to place the onus on councils. I didn't want a national figure which ran the danger of overlooking areas such as our islands, where fuel poverty is high and harder to combat. I now believe that a bill that was once lackluster and unambitious, in my view, is focused, strong and achievable. That is what we all want here today. If the bill is passed today, which I hope it will be, it will be the result of nearly a year of scrutiny. It is a very good example of committee working, of parliamentarians being listened to. There were areas of disagreement, of course there were, but we are in a good place, and this is a bill that can change lives. If I can take one thing from the whole experience myself, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is not to get on the wrong side of Jackie Baillie on anything. I desist from commenting. I now call Alec Rowley to follow by Andy Wightman. Mr Rowley, five minutes please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. In opening for Labour today, can I say that we will be voting for this bill, mainly on the grounds that any target is better than no target? We know that the last target set here in this parliament, which was to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016, was not achieved by successive Governments. The aim today of getting fuel poverty down to 5 per cent by 2040 is of small comfort for those who are currently living in fuel poverty. As such, we believe that we should, across this chamber, be more ambitious for Scotland to tackle fuel poverty. Should we at least not try to be bolder with tackling fuel poverty and work together to do all that is necessary to eradicate it? I had hoped that we could find that consensus to be more ambitious for the target, but, as we saw last week, the SNP and Tory MSPs across this chamber teamed up together to vote down the more ambitious target of 5 per cent by 2032. James Dornan Will Mr Rowley accept that he signed up to the stage 1 report? Mr Rowley was raised at stage 2 after the stage 1 report. My answer then is the same answer that I will give Mr Dornan today. I have listened to organisations up and down Scotland and people living in fuel poverty up and down Scotland who say that the 2040 target is not ambitious enough. Surely that is the job of politicians in this chamber to listen to what people have to say. The argument that comes from the SNP and the Tories is built around the Scottish Government claiming to not have access to all the drivers of fuel poverty. Second, they say that there will be new technologies needed to have that have not yet been developed. When it comes to income, they say that we have no powers, but, as Norman Kerr from Energy Action Scotland said when giving evidence to the local government committee, I quote, the Scottish Government may not have access to all the drivers but it has access to some that would certainly mitigate fuel costs in particular. On the question of being more ambitious and aiming for a 2032 target, Mr Kerr had this to say. He said that we need to scale up ambition. We could all say that 2040 sounds absolutely fine, but that would not give a step change in productivity levels or in the numbers of homes that are to be tackled each year. In all honesty, he condemns another generation to live in fuel poverty. The 2032 target is based on what we can reasonably expect in a number of parliamentary sessions and with an increase in budget. That point about budget is for me key, for if we are to have any chance of tackling fuel poverty within the levers that are within our control, then there must be an increase in the levels of funding. We are nowhere near the levels of budget that will be required to tackle the levels of poor housing. It is about time that the Government wake up to this fact and acknowledge what is needed to be done. If they want to be ambitious for Scotland, they need to be bold, put the money in and not rely on the Tories to kick fuel poverty into the long grass. That point was made by Mr Kerr when he talked in the evidence session about insulating homes against rising costs, pointing out that the more energy-efficient the home, the less energy it will use. A report earlier this year from KPMG on behalf of the Scottish Government said that 1.8 million homes failed to reach the EPC rating C benchmark in 2016. If we were to meet the 2040 target, that would equate to roughly 66,000 buildings that require major improvement each year over the next two decades. Of course, in order to achieve that, it will require much more funding than is currently available, which perhaps goes some way as to explaining why the Tories and SNP are so unambitious when it comes to fuel poverty. In the social rented sector, landlords have been required for some time to improve energy efficiency. We should do that in the private rented sector. Let's be more ambitious and let's tackle fuel poverty once and for all. It's regrettable that we have no spare time. Presiding Officer, I'm delighted to speak in this debate and to contribute to the work on the bill through its parliamentary stages from its introduction about a year ago. I also want to thank stakeholders, people like the existing Homes Alliance, Energy Action Scotland, Diolch Alexander and others who have engaged constructively with the bill and to my local Government colleagues and the clerks and SPICE during stage 1 and stage 2. The bill has been quite a collegiate process and I commend the way in which the minister has positively engaged with myself and colleagues in other parties to improve the bill. I think that we have pushed the ambitions of the bill further, particularly on the matter of a scrutiny of securing the target. It is disappointing that it remains disappointing that this is not a warm homes bill, as the SNP manifesto has promised, but the debate is nevertheless an opportunity to reflect on where we have got to with this legislation. It is encouraging that, following stage 2, we now have a bill that I think does its best to seek to eradicate fuel poverty. In Scotland, although it is just setting out targets and definitions, the real work in doing all of that will be in implementing the fuel poverty strategy and in partners and stakeholders in local government and elsewhere who have a big job to do over the next 20 years or so. Amendments that are proposed at stage 2 have strengthened the bill, making it a far more robust piece of legislation. Those include the provision of additional heating regimes lodged by Jackie Baillie. Despite being thwarted at stage 2, she initially pursued those at stage 3 and persuaded the Scottish Government to make some amendments in that regard. Likewise, the cross-party approach has ensured that the four drivers of fuel poverty are in here. I am very glad that they are. I thank colleagues such as Alexander Burnett, whose famous £60 million amendment fell, but nevertheless, and Alec Rowley, who helped to amend the section with her own important contributions. I particularly pay tribute to Alec Rowley's amendment on the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory panel, because one of the things that we were quite clear on after stage 1 scrutiny was that, if the target was going to be achieved—and, of course, it might not be, but if it were to have the best chance of being achieved—it needed independent scrutiny of not only where we are with the target but why we were there and what we might do in future. I think that the work of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel, which is now put in a statutory footing, will be critical to the meeting of those targets. A good compromise is often cited when both parties are dissatisfied with the outcome, but I do not think that that is the case here. I think that the cross-party working and engagement by the minister and colleagues is particularly on developing things such as the enhanced minimum income definition, the definition of extreme fuel poverty, improved scrutiny of the fuel poverty strategy, elevating the role of the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel to be commended. That is a good example, which has certainly given me some pleasure to be able to work with colleagues to secure legislation like that. There are, of course, disappointments. It is disappointing that the amendment to be more ambitious in tackling fuel poverty in relation to the target of 2032. We have not been able to secure that. I think that that does undermine the Scottish Government's assertion that its response to the committee report that Scotland will be amongst the very best in the world in tackling fuel poverty. It also compromises the Scottish Government's recent climate emergency declaration. That was the opportunity to tie the targets to other targets around energy efficiency. We are where we are. Sincerely, that is a very good bill. Nevertheless, I and my colleagues will be supporting at decision time. The choice of whether to heat your home or eat a meal is not one that anybody should have to face in this day and age. The sad fact is that, according to Government statistics, around 613,000 households are estimated to be living in fuel poverty and 174,000 in extreme fuel poverty. It blights communities up and down Scotland, yet we know that those living in remote rural and island communities consistently experience the highest levels of fuel poverty and extreme fuel poverty. There are many reasons for that. Longer, harsher winters, being off the gas grid, more hard-to-heat properties, lower average household incomes, higher costs in installing energy efficiency measures all play their part in placing Orkney uncomfortably at the top of the pile when it comes to fuel poverty. That is why it was so disappointing that the original bill took so little account of the rural and island dimension to this issue. It also ignored the advice of the rural fuel poverty task force and almost every individual and organisation working in this sector across the Highlands and Islands and other rural parts of Scotland. To his credit, the minister listened to the case that I made on behalf of stakeholders in those communities, a case that was supported by colleagues across the parties. The amendments that we were able to pass at stage 2, will, I hope, ensure that the needs of those in remote rural and island communities are recognised and met through the additional resources that inevitably will be required. Again, I wish to put on record my thanks to all those who helped to build the case in Orkney, the council, the housing association and the thought, but a special mention to Di-Alex and the chair of the rural fuel poverty task force, who gave such compelling evidence to the committee and proved to be the most tenacious advocate for the communities that he has served over many, many years. Of course, those were not the only changes that were made to the bill. Indeed, it was striking to me how progress was made in strengthening this bill, thanks to the efforts of each and every member of the committee and others besides. As a result, we have the advisory committee on a statutory footing with scope for recommending that targets are made more ambitious. There will be a requirement on each local authority to make progress towards achieving those targets and interim targets, so that no area or community is left behind. There will be greater flexibility in assessing needs so that resources can be more effectively targeted and all four drivers of fuel poverty taken into account. For those and other improvements that were made to the bill, I acknowledge the efforts of colleagues from each of the other parties, as well as the minister who has worked constructively to reach agreement. Remains to be seen whether our failure to accept Andy Wightman's amendment on the commencement comes back to haunt us—the revenge of the geek, one might say. However, it is important to bear in mind that the benefits of reducing fuel poverty go far beyond simply removing the need for people to choose between heating and heating. All the evidence shows that lifting people out of fuel poverty helps to improve their physical and mental health. Unsurprisingly, living in a warm, dry home helps to increase educational attainment. Local jobs are created and sustained in the energy efficiency and low-carbon heat industries, while households have greater energy security and money to spend. Our ambitions for tackling climate change are also reliant on us making progress in improving energy efficiency of our housing stock. For all those reasons and more, the bill matters. In passing this much-improved bill this evening, however, we will have done only the easy part. We now need to make sure that it and the strategy make a real difference to individuals, households and communities that, for too long, have been blighted by fuel poverty. For now, however, I have pleasure in confirming that the Scottish Liberal Democrats will be supporting the fuel poverty bill later on this afternoon. I am delighted to be given the opportunity to speak in today's important debate, a debate that further enhances Scotland's place as a world leader when it comes to addressing fuel poverty. Everyone, no matter their income and employment status, should be able to heat their homes and keep themselves and their families warm. It is absolutely unacceptable that people are still making that choice of whether to keep themselves warm or to keep themselves from being hungry. According to recent research, the UK is the second worst rate of excess winter deaths in Europe with over 3,000 deaths each year, caused by people not being able to afford to heat their homes. That shows why we need action. Indeed, the Scottish Government has already taken action, backed up by significant investment to improve energy efficiency, keeping homes warm and bills down. Recent figures show that 97,000 households in Scotland moved out of fuel poverty in 2015, and their figures are good. However, of course, faced with high-fuel bills, we know that we still have much more to do to eradicate fuel poverty. Presiding Officer, as a convener of the Local Government and Communities Committee, I sincerely like to thank all the members of the committee, the MSPs who came before us, those who submitted evidence to the minister of all and all his officials. However, I miss if I did not thank the committee's clerking team, along with colleagues from SPICE and Outreach for all the fantastic work that they did to allow us to find out, A, the true impact of fuel poverty and, B, the best way to combat it. I think that all the members would agree that the minister throughout the bills' progress has been incredibly helpful, and I am grateful for his co-operation over the past few months. The burgeoning bromance between him and the always constructive and cheery Graham Simpson has been a joy to behold. Turning to some of the amendments of the bill itself, I am delighted that MSPs voted in favour of the Scottish Government's amendments, which were moved in Thursday. Most of the amendments were technical or tidying amendments, many of which I know already had the backing of a number of MSPs. At stage 1, I expressed my own concerns that the Government did not accept the committee's recommendation to place the Scottish fuel poverty advisory panel on the statutory footing, and I am therefore really pleased to see the Government now supporting that. On that note, I would like to briefly comment on the Government's amendment 6, the amendment 96, the name of Alec Rowling, amendment 60A, and the name of Andy Wightman. I was pleased to see amendment 96 pass, and indeed Mr Rowley's other amendments made the panel a statutory consultee for both the strategy and the preparation of periodic report. However, I could not support 60A in the name of Andy Wightman. The Scottish Government supported the statutory panel as the cap meant administrative costs were not going to be excessive, and resources were focused on tackling fuel poverty on the front line, not backroom functions. Indeed, the Scottish Government's amendment 60 introduces a new three-yearly cost cap of £82,000 on the statutory panel, calculated on the basis of a similar-sized panel to the existing non-statutory body. However, there was a real risk with amendment 60A that it would cost the public purse a lot of money that could otherwise be spent on improving people's lives at home. I was delighted to see the group 2 amendments failing to garner the necessary report, and whilst I recognised that Mr Rowley's amendments were well-intentioned, the local government and communities committee scrutinised the bill carefully, took evidence from a number of people and concluded that the 2040 target date was realistic and achievable. Mr Rowley talks about increasing budgets regularly on a number of fronts, particularly on that. However, although we have limited resources to create growing the economy, we will have limited resources to be able to increase the budgets. In my view, in that of the committee's report at stage 1, there really is no credible alternative plan that shows that bringing the target date forward eight years could be achieved without major risk. It was even suggested that pushing for the earlier target of 2032 could in some cases lead to increased fuel poverty levels, due to higher installation or operating costs for householders, or to bring forward mandatory interventions in homes. An unrealistic target ignores the many concerns that have been raised, including from COSLA, which had said that setting unrealistic targets is callous, and that was based on the fact that, as Mr Rowley talked about earlier on, the earlier target of 2016, which we were absolutely at no stage ever anywhere near to completing. I am very proud that we have reached this stage of the fuel poverty bill. It says a lot for the maturity of this Parliament. Government ministers and members are like that we are in the verge of making this incredibly important bill law by working together. I look forward to decision time when we officially confirm the fuel poverty target definition and strategy Scotland bill, making it law so that it can begin to benefit the lives of many Scots still suffering from the blight of having to choose between eating and heating. For me, this is a good day to be an MSP. Thank you very much. I call Alexander Stewart. I am delighted to participate in today's debate on the third stage of the fuel poverty bill. The bill undoubtedly is a positive step forward in tackling fuel poverty in Scotland, and that is what we needed and what we require. It is concerning that estimates suggest that, in Scotland today, a quarter of households live in fuel poverty, rising to more than 50 per cent of households in Orkney and Westinale communities. Fuel poverty is driven by many factors, including energy costs, energy inefficiency, household incomes and energy use. We have to acknowledge that we do not have control over all those factors. The 2002 target set to eradicate fuel poverty by 2016 has clearly not been met. Government efforts have focused on improving the energy efficiency of homes, but rising energy costs have meant that fuel poverty levels are now significantly higher than they were set back in 2002. As we set out in our manifesto in 2016, we in the Scottish Conservatives are committed to reducing fuel poverty and ensuring that everyone lives in an easy-to-heat home. To that end, in the initial stages, we broadly support the bill as it goes forward, and we also support the recommendations from the local government and communities committee, which I am a member of. I thank everybody who gave evidence and all those who participated to ensure that we had a very positive dialogue throughout the whole journey of the bill. The bill takes on a very welcome approach, clearly setting out the revised definition of fuel poverty based on the calculation of minimum income standards and tax and account living costs. That is very welcome. We also welcome the fact that the Scottish Government publishes the fuel poverty strategy and consults with those living who have lived in fuel poverty prior to its publication. In terms of amendments, we were not able to support Alex Rowley's that brought forward a target for 2042, because we believed that that was unrealistic. The 2032 was much more talked about throughout that whole process. The amendment would require that more than 10 per cent of households in Scotland were in fuel poverty by 2035, and that 3 per cent of households would be in extreme poverty. The medium fuel cap would not be more than £300 in 2015 prices once inflation is taken into account. As of stage 2 amendments that included an interim target of 2030, more than 15 per cent of households were in fuel poverty and no more than 5 per cent of households were in extreme poverty. That will ensure that we continue to keep a momentum and ensure that we go towards the target of 2040. As we also ensure that local authorities want to play their part in addressing the issue, we are therefore introducing the amendment to that to 2040 itself. That would require councils to have their own achievements targeted by that timescale. We also support the section that was covering the Scottish Fuel Poverty Alliance panel, which covers ministers' duties to provide financial resources and to stipulate the total maximum cost of the panel allocated throughout the panel. In conclusion, I very much welcome the bill, and I support what the amendments have put out and have been outlined within the report and in the debate structure. Fuel poverty remains a massive issue for many individuals. We have already heard today that some people decide whether they heat their home or whether they feed themselves. That, in Scotland today, is something that we have to acknowledge and we have to tackle. It is a significant way forward. We have still a long way to go to ensure that we have that majority of people who feel safe and secure, but we can be proud of what we have put in place today, and I support the bill. Thank you. I call Jackie Baillie, if you have thought about Annabelle Ewing, Ms Ewing is the last speaker in the open debate, Ms Baillie. Thank you, Presiding Officer. Let me declare an interest as the honorary vice president of Energy Action Scotland. As a minister in the first labour-led Scottish Government, I was responsible for establishing the fuel poverty target, so let me start with a look back because history is indeed always instructive. It was the Housing Scotland Act of 2001 that committed Scottish ministers to ensuring that by November 2016, so far as reasonably practicable, persons do not live in fuel poverty. We all, at the time, felt that that was an ambitious target, but it was one that all the parties across the Parliament agreed on. It is not often that you find issues that transcend the political divide, so it is disappointing that, with that level of consensus, we failed to meet that target. In reflecting on what happened in the past to understand where we went wrong, it is good to look at that to understand what we need to do in the future. In 2008, I came across a member's debate. MSPs then thought that the target was tough but achievable. Nicola Sturgeon, when she was deputy First Minister, reconvened the Scottish Fuel Poverty Forum specifically to provide advice to ministers on how to refocus the policy and how to achieve the target. At that stage, we were still talking about eradicating fuel poverty and achieving the target. In 2011, members of that forum were telling ministers and parliamentary committees that unless there was a substantial increase in resource, we would fail to meet the 2016 target. The spending level, as I recall, back in 2012-13, was £65 million. At that time, the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee said that it needed to be in the order of £100 million to £170 million to achieve the target. If you strip away financial transaction money, which we know can only be used for loans, the budget now is still less than £100 million. Last year, it was underspent, something that was a feature in previous years. I know that it is difficult to put loans into a budget and expect them to all be fully utilised. We need an ambitious target. We need a route map, which is the strategy for how to achieve it, and we need the mechanism to monitor implementation closely. However, we also need to have enough money in the budget to realise our ambitions. I would be very interested to know if the minister has assessed what it will take by way of budget to realise the target. Does he have an indication of what money is required so that we achieve the target by 2040? The bill has been improved by the Government, and it has been improved by committee and other members since its introduction. I very much welcome that and the minister's willingness to discuss changes. It will come as no surprise to him that I remain, however, disappointed that the target of tackling fuel poverty, down to 5 per cent by 2040, remains unchanged. It is genuinely, in my view, lacking in ambition. As a reduction of just 1 per cent a year and potentially condemns yet another generation to fuel poverty, I think that the target should be 2032. I am genuinely sorry that the Government, aged and abetted by the Tories, has chosen to ignore the voices of experts in the field of fuel poverty, people like the existing homes alliance and energy action Scotland, because they all evidenced the need for a more ambitious target. James Dornan hit the nail on the head when he suggested that there was a burgeoning bromance between Graham Simpson and the minister. It can be seen to in the planning bill, but I clearly frightened Graham Simpson. I am so sorry about that, but let me say gently, as I can to him, that interim targets are no substitute for ending fuel poverty a full eight years earlier. It is slower than it needs to be. You can have interim targets for 2032 as well. No, I think that we have heard enough from you already. The member must now conclude—I am not friend of you, Ms Mealy. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I will conclude on that point. Thank you very much. I now call Annabelle Ewing, then closing speeches. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to participate in this afternoon's stage 3 debate on the fuel poverty target definition strategy Scotland bill. Upon reflecting on the legislative process with regards to the bill, I would like, in addition to thanking the local government committee clerks and indeed Spice, and to thank them very much for all their hard work. I would also like to pay tribute to the way in which the minister has conducted matters throughout the course of the bill. It really has been a constructive process, and it is clear that all members of the local government committees committee were full square behind the key principle underlying the bill. That is to set a target to reduce fuel poverty in Scotland, and the ambitious and realistic target agreed to by this Parliament is to reduce fuel poverty to no more than 5 per cent of households by 2040. Much discussion, of course, has been focused on the target itself, and it should be recalled indeed that, at stage 1 in our report, after having heard all the oral evidence and having studied all the written evidence received by the committee, all committee members across all parties supported the approach that is set forth in the bill. The committee understands that this approach is a pragmatic response to previous attempts to set a target that ultimately failed. We also recognise that reducing fuel poverty will lean heavily on applying technology still in development, and that it is realistic to build in time for those to come on stream. The committee went on to conclude, and I quote, The committee therefore accepts the Government's reasons for setting the target date at 2040. This acceptance of the maintenance of the bill was, however, conditional on the Government bringing forward amendments at stage 2 on a statutory interim target. The Government did so, and we have also seen that approach further strengthened at stage 3, with a further interim target having been agreed. At the same time, the Scottish Fuel Poverty Advisory Panel will be able, if circumstances permit, to propose an acceleration of the target. That seems to me to be the best way to proceed, the pragmatic way to proceed, and reflects the approach, in fact, favoured by those who will actually have to deliver the fuel poverty strategy on the ground, including local authorities. It is also, as a matter of necessity, the only approach that is open to us, given that two of the four key drivers of fuel poverty fall out with the absolute control of the Scottish Government, those being energy prices and household incomes. Concomitant with the target date is the key definition of fuel poverty itself, the focus is being very much on those who are most in need. At the same time, it is to be welcomed that the minister acceded to the committee's calls to set a separate target for tackling extreme fuel poverty and provisions on enhanced heating for those with disabilities, and long-term illnesses are also to be welcomed. I, too, look forward to the work being undertaken to develop the fuel poverty strategy underpinning the bill. As I said at stage 1, it is absolutely unacceptable that people in Scotland and energy-rich nations are living in fuel poverty. While we on these benches will use every power at our disposal to resolve that, it is self-evident that, without control over all of our resources and all of the levers of fuel poverty, without the powers of a normal, independent country, we will continue to be constrained in what we can do, something that the leader benches seem quite happy to see continue and to see Tory rule rather than home rule. That is as unacceptable to me as it is to an increasing number of people in my constituency of Cowdenbeath as well as across Scotland. For it is only with independence that we will see real social justice in Scotland. Presiding Officer, I welcome the reintroduction of a fuel poverty target, the previous one having been missed in Scottish Labour support the bill. I also welcome the new definition and the work of the committee in amending the bill, I think, to make it a great deal better than it would have been. However, I am very disappointed at the narrow scope of the bill. I believe that it should have been the warm homes bill, and I believe that the bill, at least in passing, has to be part of a centrepiece of wider policy around warm homes. As the minister said, it is a serious challenge, but all the more reason why I think it should have been wider in scope, because the First Minister herself last year said in announcing £54 million to help eradicate fuel poverty, she said. The investment highlights our commitment to tackle fuel poverty and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recognising the important link. I believe that the two significant amendments to the bill, the first is to change the definition of the uplift for rural communities, is extremely welcome. I am sure that Liam McArthur does not need me to point out that, in Orkney, fuel poverty is high, it is 59 per cent, but I am sure that he will welcome the fact that I have said it. It is one of the most significant amendments to the bill and most welcome. Secondly, the advisory panel gives me some hope that, in the long run, we can scrutinise how we are progressing with these targets, and I think that it is a significant and very welcome amendment. The evidence shows, and we all agree on this, that living in a cold, draughty home has a negative impact on people's physical and mental health and on children's attainment. In Scotland, we live in a cold country that speaks for itself, and increasingly people probably feel the need to heat their homes most of the year. It is a consideration, I think, in any policy looking at warm homes and reducing fuel. The four drivers of fuel poverty, the cost of energy, energy efficiency of homes and how households use their energy and household income. I believe that all four of those drivers can be affected by both Government action, Government policy and legislation. The UK has the highest rate of excess winter deaths, which is the only figure that I could find, which is a UK one, but we know that we still face excess winter deaths, and it is the worst rates across Europe. The wider issues that I believe and that my amendments to the bill try to address that and the majority of consumers are still in the standard variable tariffs. They are still paying way over the odds. I think that I am certainly educating consumers about how they can change that. That is the role of Government. I believe that vulnerable customers should have a programme designed for them because energy companies are not doing enough. I believe that they should be required to contact vulnerable customers. It could be a public information campaign to make sure that those customers are on the cheapest deals in my last 40 seconds or so. I just want to mention the need to ensure that the centrepiece of the whole warm homes policy also focuses on the energy efficiency drive within homes.  Scottish Power has a pretty good policy on that. I think that ministers should check to see whether all energy companies are adopting the same policy to make sure that poor people are not disconnected from their energy. In conclusion, I think that the evidence of the success of the bill is in the detail. We need a higher dose of ambition. One commitment that we will give the Scottish Government the sight or disappointment is that if we make the centrepiece of wider action on what can be done— Sorry, that was my alarm going off. I hope that it wasn't your morning call. Was he telling you to finish? I call on Alexander Burnett to be followed by Minister Kevin Stewart. Mr Burnett, please follow that five minutes. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would firstly like to note how pleased I am to see this bill finally coming through Parliament. Too often, we focus on the small things, rightly so, but looking at the bigger picture, the bill is the first step to positive changes for many across Scotland. I would like to join my fellow Scottish Conservative colleagues in welcoming the bill and, as usual, note members to my register of interests on the bill in relation to energy efficiency, property management and construction. Scotland is currently a quarter of households that live in fuel poverty, with rural and nile communities living with higher fuel poverty rates than urban areas. As existing homes alliance noted, nearly a million homes fall below the energy efficiency standard needed for our health. Change has not been coming fast enough for people, therefore causing consequential health implications and costs to the NHS. At stage 1, we supported the bill and pledged to make amendments to strengthen it. We were concerned that the bill did not outline how the Scottish Government would be held accountable if it did not meet the targets outlined, as well as how to address issues that affect islands and remote rural areas. We are very pleased to have worked with members across the chamber and that the Government has accepted amendments to align with their bid for homes to reach an EPC rating of C or above by 2040. We would of course have wished for stronger EPC targets for 2030, but we do accept that adding in interim targets at 2030 and 2025 will also bring benefit. As my colleague Graham Simpson said on Thursday, those interim targets will ensure that by 2030 we will see the overall fuel poverty rate to be less than 20 per cent and we have a further reduction to less than 15 per cent by 2035. It will also ensure that the final aim of no more than 5 per cent of households that are in fuel poverty by 2040 is reached. I was pleased to see that amendment 72, in the name of my colleague Graham Simpson, was passed. That required the strategy to set out the approach that Scottish ministers intend to take towards all targets and interim targets in each local authority area. With such varying differences in fuel poverty across Scotland, that is a much welcomed addition. I note that Andy Wightman said on Thursday that I will probably go down in history as a member who almost moved a £60 million amendment at stage 2 and I do not regret attempting to do so. In order for us to see any radical changes to fuel poverty levels and to create real change in reducing carbon emissions, we need to invest in improving energy efficiency levels now. To clarify members who may be simply looking at the cost, I was seeking to ensure that there was an actual identification of residential buildings and the work required in order to reach the EPCC rating by 2030. I clarify, in fact, that his amendment was about the identification. Does he agree with me that, actually, there are much cheaper ways to make that identification in the standard EPCC methodology and that there are also new technologies emerging and that he should stick with it? He will have my support in pushing for better means of identifying the homes that are most in need of energy efficiency measures across Scotland. I think that we can always look to improve the EPCC methodology and we are always welcome for discussions about how we can improve anything that ultimately benefits people in fuel poverty and in cold homes. This work will be required at some point and sooner it is legislated for the better. This is just an example of an issue that Scottish Conservatives and stakeholders alike have had with the bill in that it does not go far enough and is not going to bring people out of fuel poverty fast enough. Nevertheless, it is a good first step to take. I would like to briefly note my disappointment, but amendment 77 in my name was not passed. That would have provided detail on the approaches that will be taken to remove poor energy performance as a driver of fuel poverty in order to meet the target set. To end on a positive note, and as the constituency MSP for Aberdeenshire West, I am pleased to see that the bill will look after remote rural areas. By setting out a minimum income standard for these areas separately, it ensures that these communities are taken care of in a realistic manner. Overall, we welcome the bill and are committed to reducing fuel poverty. The bill will begin the process of ensuring that. As we stated in our manifesto, we are seeking the change to help households to save on their energy bills, to make homes easier to heat, to create thousands of jobs all over Scotland and all while reducing carbon emissions. Thank you, Presiding Officer. It is a bit strange having split stage 3 into 2. In the last debate, being accused of compromising with Ms Bailey and today being accused of having a bromance with Mr Simpson—I do not know what is going on here—I have obviously missed something myself. After listening to the debate this afternoon, it is quite clear that members of all parties fully appreciate that it is absolutely imperative that we remove the blight of fuel poverty from communities throughout our country. I firmly believe that the measures contained in the fuel poverty targets definition and strategy Scotland bill will ensure that we achieve that goal. The challenging yet realistic targets that the bill introduces will ensure that tackling fuel poverty remains a pressing issue for this and for future Governments. The new definition that it creates will give us a better understanding of the nature of the problem that we have ever had before, which will help us to develop a comprehensive strategy to solve it. I know that, in all of that, not everyone is satisfied. Some people always want us to go faster. I understand that, and I understand the stakeholders who want us to move quicker in that regard, but we also have to take a licence that, although some of the experts that Mr Riley mentioned said that, in 2032, those folks who are delivering on the ground—people like Cosla and various companies—say that that would not have been achievable and that 2040 was the best date. I am always a man who looks for compromise, and that is one of the good things about the additions to the bill, because the panel itself will be able to look at whether we can move the target date to a nearer time. We will keep a close eye on all of that. Of course, in energy efficient Scotland, we will continue to monitor how we are doing, what technologies have come into play and whether we can up the ante in terms of driving forward quicker. I, for one, agree with everyone here today who has said that no one should have to make the choice between putting on their heating or eating. We all feel that way, and it is incumbent in all of us as we move forward to scrutinise how we are doing in that regard, and I am sure, along with the panel, that that will happen. Some of the other points that I want to touch on relate to some of the things that folks have seen in their travels. Mr Simpson was talking about going to Stornoway. I myself have been to all of the islands and various other places to talk to people around about the changes that they wanted to see, which are now encapsulated within the bill. I know that some folk have already paid tribute to die Alexander. He deserves the tributes that have been paid from folks in all parties around about his efforts, but we should also take a nice sense of people in communities, people in organisations and communities who have made their voices heard and their voices are now encapsulated within the bill. Beyond that, I do not think that we have paid enough attention to that. This is the first bill that has been island proofed. I am very grateful to everyone who played a part in achieving that, and there may be lessons from that bill that can be picked up in other bills. Some of the debate today has strayed on to the four drivers of fuel poverty. Some have picked up on the fact that we do not control all those drivers. I am pleased that Mr Wightman and others at stage 2 looked at the four drivers in some depth and that we as a Parliament and the committee in the future should look at all four drivers. I would like to see and I hope that we can work across the chamber whether we are happy with the current devolved settlement or not. I hope that we can persuade the UK Government to look at energy costs, particularly in some of the areas that Ms McNeill mentioned, in terms of prepaid metres, which I think are scandalous, and to do more when it comes to tariffs. I think that we can work across the chamber together to try and persuade some of the changes that are required to be highlighted to the UK Government and hopefully we can see change. I would like to see those powers coming here, but in the meantime, let's see what we can do together to make the change that is required. I see you staring at me. Does that mean that I am almost out of time? Let me finish on that. Currently, there are still far too many people in our country struggling to afford to keep their homes warm. That is a situation that I find completely unacceptable. Hearing others today, I think that we are all in agreement. It is clear that this Parliament thinks the same in this issue. Let us work together to make sure that we do all that we possibly can to take people out of fuel poverty in this country. This bill will help us to bring that situation to an end, and I hope that everyone will support it here today. Thank you very much, minister. That concludes the debate on fuel poverty targets definitions strategy Scotland. It is time to move on to the next side of our business. We have a short pause to allow the front benches to take their places.


This is my quarking, perfect. All right, let's go. Hi everyone, my name is Dona Bystedt. I'm a senior concept artist at Goodbye Cancer Studios in Stockholm. This is my talk, using geometry nodes for vehicle concept art. So you might also know me from Google Auto Translation's amazing translation of my name from Lastbender Talk. Dona Biscuit. So Goodbye Cancer Studios. We are a VFX studio that creates game cinematics, VFX for film and TV. And we also provide other services like mocap and scanning. I thought it would be fun to show you our studio reel for a bit. Thank you. So in my free time I like to create personal artwork and tutorials and add-ons. I've also been providing the Blender Institute with demo files and promotion material. So yeah, let's dive into the vehicle concept generator. So here you can see the tool in action. And as you can see it's pretty easy to randomly generate different vehicle designs just by changing the geometry node parameters. And my approach has sort of been to divide the different geometry nodes set up in different modifiers because that way I can sort of like apply the primary shapes, then remodel those and still have the scattering of gribbles for instance like still live and kicking. So breakdown. So the primary shapes is made of a collection of six super simple shapes and these can sort of be replaced at any time. And I start with one object and then I scatter other objects on top of that and sort of randomly rotate them in the y-axis. And then I have this separation value thing. Or does that play? Oh, here we go. So basically that's a separation value to create more sort of complex shapes from this. So then no sci-fi plates and then magically we have sci-fi plates. This is basically just filtering out random faces, duplicate them and extruding them. So then in order to make them all symmetric I take this and just apply a normal mirror modifier because that's the fastest way as far as I know to do it. In geometry notes I guess you would have some kind of Boolean operation but we don't still have a bisect there. So then I add wings, thrusters, etc. So the thrusters always points toward the back and wings point away from the origin of the object. And the cockpit is snapping to the surface and can be moved around. So then I can also add wheels. So this is basically just a mesh line and the wheels are instanced on the points. And then I randomly remove some points to get some sort of like visual interest and so everything is not like super, you know, even. So Grebel's co-sci-fi stuff makes stuff look more interesting than it really is, you know. So basic rubbish shapes. All right, Grebel's are instanced on points and the surface is remeshed first, otherwise since I have a lot of intersecting geometry shapes I would get a lot of like Grebel's inside of the surface. So Grebel's are also aligned to the closest edge so that the x-axis aligns and the z-axis of the Grebel's aligns to the surface normal. Then mapping, so the geometry notes don't really have like a UV so when the vehicle is created and sort of make this attribute called mapping that makes me being able to like texture stuff and tile textures. So here we can see the mapping visualized. Then I have a tiling sci-fi texture and this is very similar to the texture coordinate objects in the normal, you know, shading notes. So then I assign a random value to the ship and this is used to sort of like move the mapping in x-texter space so that I can do like a texture projection with this UDM sequence. Do a top projection and that's the final material. So then I have a tiling sci-fi plate texture so this is basically just scattered stuff and then I shift them in the depth so that they don't intersect and each plate has a curve that goes along the border edge and that's sort of used in the texture to create the separation between the plates and then the geometry is instanced so that I get this tiling texture pattern that is repeating and plates and Grebel's are then rendered on separate view layers and then inside of the composting I sort of like combine these to make like a depth map and a color map. So some fiddling there. So let's dive into the node setups. So due to time limitation I won't be able to go over everything but this will be like a cherry pick of it and I apologize if there's a lot of stuff in here, so okay. So I start off with a single point using the mesh line node. And then I have these primary shapes that comes in to the collection. I use a pick instance to just pick one of these objects and we get this and then I realize the instances so I can mess around with the attributes on the points. Primary shape separation. This is the thing where like we separate the primary shapes so that they get more complex shapes. So first off I have the primary shape here then scatter points on that and then I want to sort of be able to shift the scattered objects along the surface normal. So I have a... let's see here. The normal comes in there from the node distributes points on face. Cool, so the little blue arrow there represents the normal. And then I have the separation value coming in from the user interface and I multiply that with minus 1. So if the input value is 10 I get a minus 10 and 10 and put that into a random value. And then I take the oops, too fast. Then I take the normal and multiply the normal with that random value. So we get this sort of behavior. OK, primary shapes instance on points. So now we have scattered our points, right? And we take in these primary shapes and here's the points that we scattered earlier and then we plug it into the points, right? And we get this. Now I want to add that random rotation along the y-axis. We don't really want to have... It's going to rotate along the direction of the ship because I don't want to do this kind of rotation because it's going to look super weird. So now I have a custom node group and basically I want to get the random rotation here, right? So I have an input value between 0 and 1 and then I remap that to a value between 0 and 360, right? So a value of 0 would remap to a rotation value of 0. 0.5 would remap to 180 and 1 would remap to 360. So, yeah, we got the little... Oh, I should use the laser pointer here. Here we go. 0.5 and we get... Let's just say that we get 180 here, right? And now we want to get that random value and want to get a vector between 0 and 180, right? And here I'm just using integers, so, like... I mean, vectors are float values of 3, but for readability it's integers here in the presentation. So somewhere along this line we're going to get a random rotation and we're just going to say that the result here is 95, 87 and 105. And then we just want to, like, rotate in the y-axis, right? Not in x and z. So we just multiply the rotation value with 0, 1 and 0. So that gives us a value of 0, 87 and 0. Cool stuff. So then I use a snap function in the vector math node and get the 0, 90 and 0 value. So we get a random rotation of 90 degrees, basically. And then we're just going to convert this to radians so that then we can, you know, do the rotation properly. Ja. We don't really need to care what happens there. It's just like we get this proper rotation value. So then we get this sort of behavior. It's just random rotation snapping to 90 degrees. Now it's time to scatter those cool gribbles that we did. Ooh, spaceship. All right. Here we go. So here are the source assets for the gribbles. These are just, like, very simple shapes, nothing fancy. And the z-axis will sort of point along the normal direction, as we said before. And the x-axis, we want to align that to the closest edge of the primary shapes. And the longest side of the bounding box should be one unit, because that's, you know, then you get a more predictable result when you're using random scale. So when I create the primary shapes, I also add an attribute called primary shapes on those points. And this is really handy when you're doing, like, a geometry node setup from modifier to modifier, because then we can pick up this value later and do cool stuff with it. So for instance, I only want to scatter gribbles on the primary shapes, and not the wings, for instance. So then I can just delete that. So the setup looks like this. If the points do not have a value that says primary shapes, then delete them. Look at this. Nice. So here we can see the mesh coming in over here. And we want to, now we sort of want to make sure that we don't get gribbles inside of the spaceship, right? Because we have intersecting shapes. So I convert this to a volume, then back to a mesh. Now we just have an outer hull. Now we want to snap it back to the surface of the original object. So I'm using this geometry proximity node. Take the position, and just set the position of these vertices. So now, finally, we can scatter the points, which then will be gribbles. See here. So in this step, I want to set scale to all of the points. So I get a random value between 0 and 1 over here. And then I want to remap that. So I get 80% small gribbles and 20% big. It's a magic number. OK, line gribbles to closest edge. So this is kind of like an awkward thing where it kind of floats in midair there. We don't like that at all. We want to have it align perfectly along this closest edge. Amazing. So here I have a custom node group called get vector from closest edge. And yeah, first off, I just want to get the index of this edge because we're going to need that later. So basically sample nearest from the position of the gribble, get the closest edge, and get the index. And in this part, we want to get the position of these two vertices. So use that sample index, sample the index of the edge, and get the position of the first vertex, and then the second vertex. So let's say we got a value of 5, 10, 10 on that first vertex and 5, 4, 6 on the second. Now we do some surprisingly simple math, I guess. Someone smarter than me would probably do something more fancy, but I'm like a simple minded person. So the first vertex got this value, and then we subtract the second vertex position, and then we get the direction of the edge. Now we have the vector of the edge, right? And we want to align the x-axis of the gribble along that edge. So we take, we say, oh, it's going to be the x-axis, it's going to be aligned, and we bring in that vector, the direction of the edge. Start off with this, this is bad. This is good, nice. Now it's time to align stuff to the normals, right? We already got the alignments to the closed edge. We got this little custom node, and we want to get the closest normal of the position of the gribble. So the source position is the position of the gribble, and we want to get the normal from this source mesh, output as a vector, direction basically. And then we want to say it's the z-axis of the gribble, that's got to be aligned to the surface. Taking the alignment to the closest edge, that's the current rotation that we already did, and then we plug in the vector of get closest normal, align that to the z-axis of the gribble to the normal. Very good. So some thoughts about proceduralism, pros and cons, and I think it's great, it's fast to iterate different designs, and it's super nice when you're working on a repetitive task and you need to create multiple variations, and if it would take longer time to create 100 spaceships manually, it makes sense to do this procedurally. However, creating procedural setups takes time, so if I would only do one spaceship, it might be better to do it manually. And if there's a low reusability to this kind of setup, then perhaps do it manually. So there's always this kind of estimate of time spent. All right, thank you so much for listening to me talk. It was great being here.


All right, I want to move on to IQ, and they're related, of course. Because the issue of IQ is ultimately a technical one. What is IQ? Does it really represent intelligence? How much of what is considered intelligence is measured by IQ? Which part of intelligence is intelligence a factor in determining your future? And how much of a factor is it determining your future? There are some fascinating, interesting questions that social scientists debate right about and get interested in. But the fact is that nobody cares about those issues. It's not what motivates the discussion about IQ. If you put aside Charles Murray and the bell curve and all of that, then nobody out there, none of you, I suspect, would care that much about IQ. Now, some of you would be interested in social sciences, might be interested in psychology, might be interested in the ability to predict success in the future and whether IQ measures that or doesn't measure it, and the whole intellectual theoretical, no, but academic debate about intelligence and IQ, which is a robust debate that happens out there. The only reason IQ is at the forefront of the public debate is because it is used by racists to justify their racism. It is true. So once that is done, it becomes an interest for those of us who are not racists, who want to protect against it. Now, reading the literature of IQ is difficult because it deals with specific psychological methodology, how you construct tests and what those tests evaluate. So I'm going to, I'm trying to break this down for you now, right? What is the test, what does it actually measure and what does it actually predict? And then it deals with a whole world of statistics. It deals with how significant a correlation there is between performance in the test and future performance in activities in life, between taking the test once, taking it twice, taking it three times, and the deviation across tests. There are massive intricate issues regarding just the statistics and the statistic validity of any inferences that have been generated by IQ tests. Now, people here claim they know everything there is to know about IQ, but I bet you none of you other than listening to Charles Murray or a few other, or some others or certainly Marlon, you and some racists discuss this, know nothing about IQ. Know nothing about the debate around IQ. Know nothing about statistics. I know you know nothing about statistics because statistics is hard. I mean, almost nobody gets statistics on the coronavirus. Never mind statistics about IQ. You know nothing about actual analysis. You maybe have read our Wikipedia page on IQ and that's it. You think you're experts. And now you can say the different racists have different IQs and you know exactly what that means. You know nothing. So it is stunning to me how uncritical people are about what they know and what they don't know. What are they actually holding and what they don't hold? What is actually true and what's not true? I mean, I know something about statistics. I don't consider myself an expert in statistics, but I know more statistics than certainly the average person and almost anybody who's not a statistician, who's not studied intensely statistics. I did econometrics. I run regressions. I run sophisticated econometric models. I know how to do this stuff. Not an expert, but I know how to do this stuff. I know how to interpret it somewhat. I'm not an expert. That's a hard and yet all of you know with certainty that IQ represents what you think it represents. How do you know that? Just epistemologically. How do you know that? Because you read an article. What about the 20 articles that contradict that? So it's unbelievable to me. IQ tests were designed to test certain skills and they do a good job in testing the skills that the test was designed to test. And if you check to see, if you score high on an IQ test, if you execute on the skills that a test for, yeah, there's a good correlation there. But we've taken a test that resigned to test for certain skills. And by the way, skills that have nothing to do with thinking outside the box, with innovating, with being creative, with actually thinking. But more skills that have to do with a certain regimented way of looking at things and being a bureaucrat really. IQ tests the logic test that. And we've turned it into the test of intelligence. Most, I don't know about most, many people within the field are skeptical. Think there are other ways to measure intelligence or that IQ measures some aspect of intelligence, but not all of it. But then there's this other interesting factor. Generally, most of you and I are very skeptical of what comes out of the social sciences. Very skeptical of psychologists, very skeptical of some of these psychological experiments and the results that they generate. But for some reason, you guys believe completely everything they tell you about IQ. You don't agree with their politics. You don't agree with other psychological things that they advocate for. But IQ, you believe, why? Because it happens the way the bell curve is structured, the argument in the bell curve is structured, that it reinforces your priors. That it supports your racist views. It supports your racist views. That's why you believe it. Not because you know it. Not because you studied it. Not because you understand it, but because you support it.  But Nassim Taleb, who wrote The Black Swan, who I disagree with fundamentally on a lot of issues, and who generally is a jerk, it's just not a nice person, is a genius statistician.  It doesn't, IQ tests, he shows statistically only a good at measuring who has very low intelligence. But once you get over like 90, they lose all significance. The difference between 90 and 100 and 100 and 120 have a meaningless statistically. The one thing that IQ results seem not to be able to predict. So there's a lot of literature about IQ tests, and Jordan Peterson quotes this. IQ tests predict success in life. Well, one measure of success in life IQ can't predict, which is interesting. Of all the things in success in life that IQ supposedly predict, the one that they can't is the one we can actually measure. Wealth. When you actually run a regression of wealth versus IQ, there's no correlation. There's no correlation. So I'm dubious about IQ. I always have been. I'm not dubious about intelligence. I'm not dubious about the fact that some of us are more intelligent than others. I'm not even dubious about the fact that we're born with different levels of intelligence. Let me just say one thing about the bell cup. The bell cup takes racial groups. I don't know what that even means because I don't believe there is such thing as race. And then it calculates an IQ, an average IQ for each one of the races. It shows, for example, Ashkenazi Jews, my people are the smartest.  I don't know, East Asians are next. Whites are next. Hispanics and blacks have the lowest IQ. But even in the bell curve, that's just averages. And there are many reasons why that study is unbelievably flawed. Unbelievably flawed. The differences between individuals within the group are dramatically larger than the differences between the averages. So it makes no difference in evaluating specific people. Yeah, the insults are already coming. It makes no difference for anything in life. What your group's IQ is. The only thing that matters is what your IQ is. It doesn't matter for anything in life. In assessing an individual's intelligence, what his group's IQ is, if your IQ is important. It only matters what that individual's IQ is. And that's not even important because IQ does not represent, people say, straw man, you're on. Every time I say something, you disagree. Straw man, you're on. What is a straw man? Explain. Ask a super check question. Explain. Challenge me. But you can't. Or you can shout, straw man, straw man. Where's the straw man? And the fact is that I know, and I've said this many times, know many people who are born with very high intelligence, who are idiots, and people who are born with very low intelligence, who are incredibly successful and brilliant. I know people with high IQ, probably dumb when it comes to a lot of things. Low IQ, who are really smart when it comes to other things. Yeah, I know. He's accusing me of a fallacy, but which one? IQ correlates heavily with strong success factors. Only success factors that are not measurable. I mean, as the seem to live documents in his essay, and you should go read it, the one thing that's measurable is wealth, and it doesn't correlate with wealth. And even when it correlates with other important successes, because I've seen Jordan Peterson, even when it correlates with other important successes, it correlates weekly. It doesn't explain a lot. Maybe it explains 20%. OK, 20% is a lot. But what about the other 80%? Why isn't that important? Oops, what did I do? You only focused on the 20%, because again, Ed Locke has a concept of working intelligence.  It's unscientific. It's completely not a nonsense. And you guys should stop doing it.  Don't pretend to be a scientific one, because the science is not there. As Michael writes, as an employer, I couldn't care less about IQ. When hiring, I use my best objective analysis to choose people who will produce. I don't even care about education, because my best salespeople never went to university. Absolutely. And I think today, the truth is, same is true of programmers. Charles Murray has never said, you can judge an individual based on a group. I never said Charles Murray said it. I said, you guys say it. Charles Murray is too good of a thinker to say that. But Charles Murray makes many errors. And it's interesting, because I think Charles Murray makes many errors in many of his books, not just in that book. I disagree with Charles Murray. He had a lot of things. And this is one of the things I disagree with him on even doing what he did with the Belcove. I never accused Charles Murray of saying that. You go back and listen to what I said. I said, people use the Belcove to do that. All right. So the whole IQ debate is an excuse, an excuse to be a racist. Some of my audience, not all of my audience, I know when I say you, I'm not talking. The people who know, the people who are not racist or not IQ betas know that I'm not talking about them, I think. They've listened to me enough. All right. By the way, I've run empirics. I've run statistics. I've run regressions. You can do a lot to manipulate data if you want to get good results. To do good econometrics is hard. And I have a strong suspicion that people in the social sciences don't do good econometrics. That's part of what Nassim Taleb is saying. Econometrics is a tough field. And I'm dubious about the ability of a lot of social scientists to do it. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, wins, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist brought. Using the super chat, and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity, go to uranbrookshow.com slash support, or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going. I'm not showing the next.


The one click trading feature allows you to open or close a trade with just one click. Once a trade size has been entered, clicking once on the buy or the sell price will send the order straight through for processing. You will not be asked to confirm the order, it will be placed immediately. You can activate one click trading via this icon in the top navigation toolbar or alternatively via the order settings. Once you have carefully read and accepted the terms of use, one click trading will be activated on your account. By default, you can place one click trades on all streaming price buttons within the platform. However, you can choose to enable one click trading within the price quote windows only via the one click settings here. When using one click trading, any advanced order settings including save ticket quantity, boundary levels, custom stop order triggering and forward settlement behaviour will automatically be inherited from your personally configured order settings for the relevant CMC product. By default, your personal stop loss order and take profit order settings will be applied to your one click market order. These however can be disabled separately here. Once you activate one click trading, you can choose between three modes within the main toolbar including single click which is on as default, double click or the locked feature. Locked will disable one click trading for those times you are simply monitoring the market. If one click is activated on all price buttons, when you move your mouse over any live streaming price, a one click ticket will appear allowing you to enter a trade size. The price quote windows will now also include an order size entry fill. You can enter the size manually or you can use the drop down menu to select from a number of preset trade sizes. If you have selected to have save ticket quantity by product enabled under the order settings, the price quote panel will be pre-populated with your previous order size in the relevant CMC product. If you have not traded that product before, it will be left blank. Depending on the units or stake size entered, the price and spread displayed within the one click ticket will display the live price from the price ladder corresponding to the number of units or the stake size entered. The price depth level indicator will be displayed in the bottom corners of the one click tickets and also the quote panels. If no units or stake size is entered or the market is simply closed, clicking the price will load the full order ticket. Depending on the mode you have chosen in the main toolbar, a single click or a double click on the buy or sell price will immediately place the trade. The mouse icon will change when you hover over a live streaming price to reflect that one click is live and the mode chosen. After you place or close an order using one click trading, an execution alert will be displayed in the top right of the platform showing the price at execution, the size of the trade, any associated stop loss orders and or take profit orders and the realized profit or loss for any closing orders. Please take time to read this to ensure your order has been executed as expected. This confirmation will automatically fade after a set period of time. One click also applies to closing open positions or trades or even cancelling pending orders. Simply click or double click the red X icon next to the position or the trade you wish to close and the trade will immediately be processed without the need to confirm. It's important to know that you will not have a chance to cancel orders once you have clicked a buy or sell price so please take extra care when using one click trading as there is an increased likelihood of an order being unintentionally submitted. Please note that before you can use one click trading you will need to carefully read then accept the one click trading terms of use.


In this presentation we will calculate OASTI or Social Security. We're currently here on the payroll register. What we see on the payroll register so far is our two employees. We've gotten to the total earnings here. Support a counting instruction by clicking the link below giving you a free month membership to all of the content on our website broken out by category broken out by course. Each course then organized in a logical reasonable fashion making it much more easy to find what you need than can be done on a YouTube page. We also include added resources such as Excel practice problems, PDF files and more like QuickBooks backup files when applicable. So once again click the link below for a free month membership to our website and all the content on it. And now we're ready to take a look at the OASTI. So these are going to be the two employees.  We can't see the names Bill and Pam, but we'll scroll this over here so we can concentrate on where we need to concentrate. So we've got the total earnings for our two employees. We need to know what the OASTI wages are, which is normally the same, but could differ if someone hits this cap, which we're saying for this problem is 128 400 that will probably that goes up typically from year to year. But if we know the cap, the concept will be the same. So what we need to do is is know did anyone hit the cap, looking at these two numbers you say well no no one hit the cap there and there's that's way less than here. But obviously what we're doing here is trying to figure out did they hit the cap up to this point in time. This only shows one pay period. And so what we need to do this is pay period 40 is go through their registers and say okay where are they at from year to date, how much have they earned year to date. That's how we need to determine if they have or not hit the cap to do that. We'll go to the earnings records. We're going to go to the earnings records tab and we're going to scroll all the way up to the top and I'm looking for this is Bill Smith. Now it doesn't look like they're going to have a problem here based on the income for Bill. So if we scroll back down to the end of this we're at pay period before pay period 40 before we do this, not anywhere near total earnings or social security earnings, nowhere near the cap. So we look good there. If we keep scrolling back down to now we're on Judy by the way or Pam and we scroll back down we see that we could have a problem here and this is where we're actually going to have. So we need to make sure that we're before this calculation before the week that we're in. If we look at the total it adds up to 125, 535. So the question then is is the difference to bring us up to where we need to be or to the cap of 128, 400 minus the 125, 535 that's 2008, 65. That's less than if that is less than the OASDI wages which it typically is because it's being 3,118 then we need to use the lesser of the two and if we use that 2,865 it'll get us up to the cap and we cannot go beyond the cap. That will be the point. So for her we're going to use this 2,865 rather than the normal wages. So if we go back over here we know that this is the one we really got to watch out for because that's the big earner here and that's going to be at 2865 and note again you can't really tell on the payroll register that's why you need to link it to the earnings report and if we don't do that we'll end up paying too much social security. So when it gets to bill is not going to be a problem to hit that cap there could be a difference however between the total earnings and the OASDI as well in terms of the if there's a cafeteria plan and for this problem we're going to say it's 250 for the cafeteria plan so we're going to say this equals the total earnings minus the 250 for the cafeteria plan so that's going to be their wages if we sum this up then total SUM and we sum that up we're going to get 3,371.50 okay so then we're going to calculate the taxes on it now I'm going to do it over here because sometimes it's helpful to see it vertically this is how I would we would punch into a calculator this is how you probably want to do it in a problem have a vertical calculation so I'm going to calculate the employer and employee portion just so we can get an idea of the fact that there isn't an employer and employee portion so what we're going to do is we're going to take the wages and I'm going to take the total this time as well and that's want to emphasize the fact that because it's a flat tax rate we can take the total and or we can take the sum of the taxes for the individuals that's the nice thing the beauty of a flat tax so we're going to take this total I'll just say equals that total and then we'll multiply it times the rate which is 6.2 percent or 0.062 6.2 percent then we'll multiply that out so I'm going to bring this over to the outside column equals this total times the 6.2 percent gives us the 209.03 and then we'll do the same thing for the employer portion note the employer is going to have to pay as well so it's just going to be the same thing it's going to be that same total times the OASD or rate 0.062 and then we'll multiply it out this equals this number times the rate so note we just have an employer and employee portion that'll give us a total of these two so if we say equals this number plus this number that gives us our total I'm going to go ahead and double underline the form I'm going to format paint this home tab format paint put the double underline here as well so there is going to be our totals now we're going to get to that same total here for the employee portion in our register we're not going to put the employer portion in this portion of the register we're going to have to calculate that when we do the journal entry however so we'll do the same thing here but this time we'll do it employee by employee or equals the 50650 times 0.062 that's 31 for the second employee equals this number times 0.062 that's the 177.63 and if we add those together with the sum function equals the sum of these two that'll give us our 20903 and that of course matches the employee portion that we calculated here as a total from the total and the employer portion we'll have to add to that when we do the journal entry