And the key ingredients needed for family businesses to build legacies beyond today's profit centres around vision, clarity of purpose and getting the right talents for the business. These nuggets were handed down by the CEO of a cheer centre group, Dr Ibu Koon Awashike, in her keynote speech at the inaugural edition of the family business conference organised by the Lagos Business School. It was themed from family enterprise to family institution climbing the longevity ladder, just as Akadere tells us more. Is it to provide for a family? Is it to keep a family in bed that the public eye hasn't gone somewhere? Most family-owned businesses in Nigeria fail to survive to the second generation and even more fail to survive to the third. The problems with sustainability pose issues for individuals and communities. In family and boardroom discussions, succession is often the elephant in the room. Consent about the protection of family businesses and the jobs they support, the Lagos Business School puts this conference together to feature discussions by family business leaders on the impact of family dynamics, governance, succession on survival and the sustainability of family-owned businesses. Now, this side of the family business is, as a product of the case, the fact that many of these businesses is actually a cause for concern. I mean, we're reaching by cracking but let the participants survive to the third from third to second generation. We must leave it within the organisation. Dr Ibokun Awoshika is a CEO of the chair centre. She takes to the stage to speak on the topic, building a legacy beyond today's profit, charting the course from family enterprise to family institution. She sums it all up by telling family business owners to know why they started their businesses in the first place, when and how to bring in the right talents as well as the value of values. And it might be the youngest one that is best suited for facing the market, but in a family structure that can be a challenge and the politics and dynamics of family always comes in. But in building an institution that should not be. What is important is what is the right talent for the business and is that right talent, the youngest or the most senior or the cousin rather than the son because now if the son or the third child becomes the empty, is it his own son that will take over. The session is interactive and this panel brings a representation of founders and second generation of family businesses together. They share and compare notes on navigating succession dynamics in African family businesses. Environment, Estonia environment is very harsh. Family businesses, we go and take their reserve to support the business to weather the storm, thereby protecting jobs, protecting livelihood and in turn protecting their legacies. Well on on the family governance side, I mean it's something that we're still working on like you said I mean it doesn't even if it's not set up because everything is it's a work in progress.  Let me better look for something that I can hand over to them. A well-executed succession plan provides an opportunity for the next generation to learn and develop the necessary skills and knowledge required to lead the family business. Speakers also share on family governance and other key areas. So if you look back at all the businesses Nigerians have ever started right back from Ojuku transports, Uduzola tires, Concord, Arik, tell me which one is your surviving and they were all successful businesses at that time but as soon as the founders died, the businesses died. The founders joy is to see the business move through the bloodline but in the instances where that cannot happen you do the same thing you do when you're going to do anything that carries risk. You mitigate the risk. I think the starting point is clearly articulating what the vision is and what the expectations are. When there's intentionality and a legacy mindset you have a founder that decides that look I want this to live beyond me. It's not about being a superhero, it's not about me. It's about something beyond me. When you can have that level of clarity you'll find and when you don't have that you do have challenges because there's no planning for life after their founder basically. Succession planning often involves emotional decision making as it requires family members to navigate complex dynamics and relationships. However, a merit-based approach to leadership selection ensures that the most qualified and capable individuals assume such roles. Justin Acadone, Plastipides Lagos. Hello, hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


He intimately understands the stresses. He as an officer, if he establishes a reputation for fairness and consistency, his word will be heeded, his explanations and reassurances accepted. His encouragement of the man in coping with his fears, resentments and griefs can provide stronger psychological support than any other medical officer in the division. There is not much the individual battalion medical officer can do to keep men from injury and battle. There is much he can do to prevent important loss of manpower from psychiatric causes. At first day I wasn't thinking much about my contribution to the prevention of any casualties, except perhaps myself. I was uneasy. I didn't know what to expect. Look, Doc, there's your battalion. Look here, here, Doctor. All of one of the corpsmen take care of it. Okay, Chief. Let's go meet the old man. Look, Peter, he was a good battalion medical officer. Though not a psychiatrist, he seemed to have been quite sold on the subject. He reported into the division and just got here. Oh, Doc Orvillean's replacement, huh? Yes. Glad to have you aboard. We're getting into one of the best outfits on the line. It's Major Barton, my exec. Glad to know you said that. We've got a good bunch of men here, Doctor. I guess I thought a CO in an exec in combat would be rather taut and brass-bound. But these men, and in fact most of the officers I was to meet, I learned to respect for many reasons. They were top professional soldiers, highly competent and assured, but friendly and receptive to any sensible ideas we had to offer. Yeah, the other day we were talking about this combat fatigue problem, and the surgeon says to me, without batting an eye, Colonel, there's a direct relation between the quality of leadership and the number of NP casualties in any battalion. Of course, I knew that there was nothing personal in it. As a matter of fact, I agree with him completely, although I'd never looked at it in those terms before. And what's more, he's been keeping a lot of the men we thought had gone psycho on, I mean, NP cases, and returning them to the line. Yeah, the old professor showed us that some of these Marines that looked like they couldn't take it were really good stuff. It's surprising what a night's sleep, a little encouragement, and getting them back front, what we'll do for most of them. Well, we'll see you, Colonel. Right. Well, by the way, sir, Able Company may have some rough going tomorrow. They lead the attack. Jump off at 0630. Thanks, Major. The word's out.  Well, you know how to handle them, sir. Yeah, before Dark Peters joined the battalion, Sick Bay unloaded too many good men to their rear. He can probably give you some good pointers on this stuff, and we need all the men we can keep. Well, glad to have you with us. Thank you, sir. Thanks. So this is it, huh? Say, why all the emphasis on NP casualties? How about Marines were rugged? They are, more than most. But any man can develop symptoms that make him temporarily or, in a few cases, even permanently ineffective in combat. The old man knows that. He's pretty much on the ball with this problem, and that helps. Hi, Doc. Hi, Andrews. How are you? Fine. Hi, George. This is Dr. Yoast, Lieutenant Eastman R. Adjutant. Doctor? How do you do? This is Sergeant Major, Dr. Yoast. Glad to know you, Doctor. I do. I'll bet Dr. Overland was glad to see you. You've been grasping about rotation for a long time. Yeah, I expect waiting for me was beginning to get him down. I guess so. By the way, Sergeant Major took care of that kid you sent in. The one it was all shook up. Yeah, thanks a lot. Just saw him scooting out of here. Well, you said we could all use an extra hand around the CP after you sort of convinced us. Well, so long. That's all it took for most of them. I didn't realize it at first, but the Sergeant Major and the Adjutant gave us some wonderful help. Sometimes I couldn't decide what to do with a man. A couple of days around the CP gave me a chance to keep my eye on him. Most of them went back to duty on their own when they were rested. Some needed a little encouragement. Many men were kept at duty who would have been lost to the rear. We had to be careful not to clog up the CP or have sick bay known as an easy out from duty. You've got to have cooperation from the line offices. I never miss a chance to keep them informed about their medical problems concerning their men and getting their angle on them, particularly on P-cases. It pays off. Incidentally, what's all this about Dr. Oberlin? He was a hard charger and a damn good doctor. But lately the job seemed to be getting him down. He was getting a bit moody and let it influence the handling of his patients. What do you mean? Well, sometimes he'd evacuate everybody and sometimes he wouldn't evacuate anyone. I don't get you. Sometimes it almost seemed to be if I can't get out, nobody will attitude. And other times it was if I can't get out, at least you can. I'm sure he didn't think it out that way, but it's one of those things you got to watch in yourself. Getting used to it after a while. Nobody likes this stuff. But it does become tolerable. How about some chow? Huh? Oh, yeah. I wasn't very hungry. And I didn't understand yet that this was one of those opportunities Peters had spoken of. I was meeting some of the company officers for the first time. A few of them were down from briefing and had stopped by the mess area before going back to their men. Any Marine officers come out with you, Doc? I'm expecting my relief any minute now. No, sorry. Quit kidding yourself, Milt. Your relief just graduated from grade school. How are the women making out in the states these days? Do they miss me? Oh, they sure do. Hey, Serge, you've still got one of my boys. The one with the sprained ankle. How's he doing? Well, we've had him sitting around the supply tent making out forms another few days, and he'll be good as new. What about that fella I sent down with the drizzly runs? We caught him up. It's probably more of an emotional thing than infectious. Another 48 hours around the CP, and he'll be okay. You better keep your eye on him, though. I'm not sure he can take much more. Oh, why not evacuate him? We've got fighting to do up here. Hey, cool, Jack. Anybody can get a belly full, some sooner than others. So what? He won't be any good to you, even if you do get him back on the line. Now, wait a minute. Pete sent us back plenty of men I never thought we'd see again. They performed, too. That's soulmate. The equivalent of a couple of platoons, the CO said. Makes a hell of a lot of difference. I haven't noticed too many of these characters returning to my platoon. Maybe there's a reason. Say, Pete, what percentage would you say if all our casualties are sent back to your division psychiatrist? Depends on the situation. In heavy prolonged combat, and where we're getting crowded or have to move out quick, maybe one out of six or seven wounded. Well, I suppose you have the time and space. Depends. Practically all of the men who are shook even before they get into battle are sent back to duty promptly. Those men who do break in battle and need a little more time, we hold for a day or two. Most of these men get back on the lines, too. What about the division psychiatrist? They send back well over half of the men we do have to evacuate.  Believe it or not, only a very small percentage. See what I mean? Look out for competition, doctor. Seems like we're all turning into a bunch of psychiatrists. You know, that's very interesting. Because whether you realize it or not, you hit it right on the head. Platoon leaders can be our biggest help for this whole problem.  I'm open-minded. And only slightly spastic. Well, anybody who's been out here long enough is likely to notice some changes in himself.  How long have you been out here, Jack? Okay, okay.  Time for sick call. Don't you get squared away and I'll see you there. Finish your coffee, though. Okay. Well, Doc, what about that ammo carrier I sent down with the weebs? One who said he got pooped out carrying ammo on the hill. He looked kind of shook. Murphy? Yeah, I thought he was genuine enough. Not a very rugged type, a bit immature. We gave him a little rest and a pep talk. Told him you might be able to make him a rifleman. Okay, Doc, thanks for the referral. Thanks for the referral. The line seemed to have picked up the lingo. But I'd begun to see that it went a good deal deeper than that. Peters was getting cooperation by proving that there could be an unnoticed and unnecessary leakage of manpower if company officers didn't understand the problem of combat anxiety in its many and varied forms. In its many and varied forms. In its many and varied forms. I didn't know then that combat anxiety might show up as a a sprained ankle that stayed lame a sprained ankle that stayed lame a well healed wound broken glasses toothache. Peters got right at the core of things. I told you business would be up tonight. The truth is, many if not most of these men wouldn't be here if we weren't attacking in the morning. Their symptoms are real. But they're scared, just plain scared. And most of them don't connect. Their symptoms with being scared. It's normal. Look, I'll lead off and you can take hold when you feel like it, huh? We'll do. A doctor? Yeah. A tenant and I have sent this man in since he wants to see you. His name's Johnson. Oh, yeah. What's the trouble, Johnson? Well, Doc, my stomach's all fouled up. How does it bother you? It feels lousy all the time. All the time? Well, on and off for a couple of weeks. I feel sick when I wake up. Off my feet. Then belching rotten eggs. Quivery feeling all the time. Any pain? Well, man, everyone out here starts belching rotten eggs after a while. It's a sign of an old salt.  With that first sick call, I started to understand the various signs and symptoms of anxiety that are common to all men who have been in combat for any length of time. I was to find that there were many men and officers whose stomachs acted up or had headaches, palpitation, loose bowels, frequency, irritability, tremors, or whatnot, yet who were completely effective in their jobs. It's not the symptom. It's the man, his capacity for adapting to the stress of combat despite his anxiety. Nothing unusual, fella. Most of the men get the same feeling from time to time. You ever play football? Well, you know the feeling you get just before the game? This is the same thing only a hell of a game. The corpsman will give you something to ease the belching. You'll be okay. I hope so, doc. What's his temperature? Normal, doctor. Doctor, would you take a look at Jasper down here? Had a headache the last few weeks, he says. I'll go. This is the man, doctor. Jasper? You want me to get your thyloscope, sir? Yeah. I think it would somehow get him off the lines. I didn't realize that at the time because in the beginning I was inclined to spend too much time trying to rule out unlikely organic causes. That's a luxury of civilian practice. Later, I'm afraid I may have become a little too casual in a diagnostic sense. The best approach, of course, is to take the man and his complaints seriously, whether psychogenic or not, and to conduct a sufficient or physical examination this time permits, even if some conscious elaboration is suspected. It's not only good medical practice, but to do otherwise provides the man with a convenient basis for his resentments and a rationalization for any reluctance to carry on.  There, that should fix it up. Thanks, doc. Say, I've got a man here who says he's had headaches for a couple of weeks. I can't find anything, except a little nasal congestion.  What's his name? Dr. Jasper again, huh? Able Company. Let's see if we can get some more dope on him. We'll give him a ring. Able Six? Let me talk to your company commander. Hello, Jack, this is Peters. Look, Jack, I got one of your men down here. His name's Jasper. Do you have any scoop on him? Yeah, I know him, Pete. A rabbit-y sort of character, but kind of surly. He keeps to himself, sloppy with the details. I think he's a foul ball. How long has he been with you? Oh, about ten days. Say, look, Jack, I've talked with this guy before, and he's not a bad sort, basically. Among other things, he's been worrying about home matters. He's new, and he's not the sort who adjusts to a new crowd very quickly. Give him a chance. How about getting Sergeant Gray to show a little interest in him? A word from you would help, too. Oh, brother. What's the Marine Corps coming to? Okay, okay. Send him back. We'll do what we can. They'll cooperate. Will it work? As before in similar cases, once a new man starts feeling he's a welcome member of the organization, he doesn't feel so scared and unhappy. But you have to act before the thing's out. What do we do now? Give him some explanation about these headaches, a few APCs to take with him, and send him back to duty. We'll do it firmly. And don't get involved in any arguments. What's up, man? I think I got the pile, Doc. Well, let's take a look, huh? Just a few tags. We can fix that up for you for the time being, anyway. I should rather go to the hospital. Hell most, sir. It ain't that bad. I can't leave the outfit now. We're jumping off in the morning. Can't you just put something up there? Okay. The corpsman will give you something to ease it. That group spirit is the most powerful support the doctor has in keeping men at duty. Some men you just can't evacuate even though you know it's medically sound. And some won't even turn in when they should, as long as the fighting's going on. Well, I guess that's all of them for sick call this evening. The corpsman will take care of anything else that comes up. And if they can't, the chief will let us know. Okay. We sure have a good bunch of corpsmen. We do. But that matter the aid men out with their companies take care of most of sick call right on the spot. Well, I expect they know how to help with organic troubles, but are they of any value with these combat fatigue cases? Oh, they sure are. Now you take those corpsmen over there. When they report for duty, I always give them a briefing on the NP problem. The necessity for preventing the leakage of manpower and at the same time spotting the occasional anxiety cases, becoming useless and a danger to his outfit. But who just won't call it quits? Above all, I emphasize the company aid man's great value in providing observant information on all the referred cases. They help us make a fair decision about this position. You'll see what I mean in the morning when the real show starts. I need two sutures. One of them grenades landed right next to me. Didn't get you, though. No, but a wing went to tomb sergeant. I started hollering them. I guess I got excited for a while. Good God, Doc, I don't know. I guess I can't take it. Corpsmen, let's have that coffee here. The man was alert, responsive, exhausted. The reaction was relatively superficial and transient. To evacuate him to the rear, might have sent up a guilt reaction that he would have had to justify by the development of further symptoms. He'd been thrown off balance by a sudden shaking experience. We gave him a chance to get his bearings, offered him some firm reassurance and sent him right back. How about some water, huh? I just crapped out. Hot all day on patrol yesterday. I was pooped. Scared like I never been before. But even get my breath. I guess I just passed out. I could just sleep. I can't.  Get easy, fella. How about racking this man out near Sick Bay? I don't expect him moving the next 12 hours. What if he doesn't snap out of it by then? Well, we can always send him back to Regimental Aid and have them hold him for another 24 hours. We send a note along indicating we expect the man back shortly. We've got a good working relationship with Regiment on these cases. They know how to handle the occasional man we send them. Well, if you think there's a chance for a fairly quick recovery, you should use the Regimental Aid Station. One you can't hold the man here. He gets back on the job quicker, than the rest of the government of the division. And he doesn't get the feeling of being a hospital case. I see. Peter's was hitting upon the basic principle of combat psychiatry. Treat as far forward as reasonable and return to duty as quickly as possible. In that way, you don't lose the great advantage of the man's identification and pride in his own fighting group, and you minimize the opportunity for symptoms to develop and persist as unconscious justification for escape. Take that, boy. Looks much worse than the others. Yet most of this is due to physical exhaustion and lack of sleep. Two factors which can often mislead you into a bad prognosis. He's from Able Company. They've really been kept jumping lately. We'll give him just enough sedation to knock out the anxiety and permit him to sleep. That may do the trick. Dr. Yos! The news, son. Grenade bounced off my helmet. Went off. Knocked me dizzy. You remember the sound of the explosion? The flash? Yeah. Never forget it. I must have passed out right after. Headache? Dizzy? Let's have an otoscope, hmm? Blast concussion, huh? I don't think so, but we'll see. That hurt you, Tom? A little. It was not blast concussion. I gradually discovered that the familiar symptoms of headache, transient dizziness, and various acute anxiety manifestations after a man had been shaken up by a nearby explosion were usually best understood and treated in psychological terms. In most cases, brain injury due to concussion was minor or absent. There was no true retrograde amnesia, no hemorrhages, no tympanic perforation, no neurological findings. That hurt? No. We'll give him a mild sedative stat and get Regiment to keep him for a few days before sending him back to his outfit. We can't keep him here because we might have to move out. Nothing at all serious, fella. Nothing wrong with your head. You'll be okay in a few days, but you do need and deserve a couple of days of rest and sleep. Carmen? This is in a back to Regiment only. Well, you looky going through the rear and sleeping in the sack all day. Somebody bring your child to you? Boy, that's for me. I won't even have to do my own laundry. Yeah, you follow if you don't, it breaks. What is your last name? Decker. First name? Kill of the face. Any spreaders? No. What's the story, Corporal? Corporal, do you hear me? What's the story? I'm good at Carmen. We always get useful information from him. That's some coffee, Corporal. I left him. Thank God. You need a rest, Corporal. You'll go back, but you need a rest. I crept out. Send me back. Send me back. I don't belong here. I'm not sick. They need me up there. They need me. You'll go back with them in a few days, son. Carmen, get this man to med the tide. Not much left. More than you might think. I know that man. Been out here for a long time. Had just about all he can take. For a while. Funny. I always thought a man would be glad to get out of this mess. Not that one, apparently. That's just it. When they can't keep it up any longer, why are they feel guilty of letting their buddies down? Well, we can tell them what good guys they are, but what do we do to treat them? Well, we reassure them as best we can. Most of the men we see have these feelings to some degree, but in extreme cases like that one way. The guilt-relief business has to wait until it calms down. Back at the medical company with division psychiatrists. Oh, Doctor, we need some help. Better do a cut down. I don't want to waste time. Be clean. Ship them out. All right, Doctor. Say, Doc, my feet are killing me. Your feet? How long? Ever since I've been here. I'm four months now. See, you got a new pair of boots. They give you any support? They did it first. Then the pain came back. Well, let's have a look. Pretty good-looking pair of dogs. But they hurt, Doc. Uh-oh. Certainly, this man looked bad. Yet not all such cases are irretrievably lost in combat duty. Although he had to be evacuated to division there were some favorable indications. He had performed well before. His disturbed behavior was precipitated by a sudden shocking experience. He still had a good fighting grip on his weapon. Most shaken men are sent to duty by the BMO or the division psychiatrist. But there are a few who, for the safety and welfare of the group should never be returned to a front-line unit. The panic prone, the grossly immature, the profoundly apathetic, the faltering non-com who has lost the confidence of his men and severe hysterical reactions when not precipitated by some sudden trauma. Hey, Dr. Hi, Tony. You still here? Mr. Zucca man is out there. So his top was telling me last night. Mr. Zucca man, huh? Yes, sir. Good Zucca man's hard to get.  I don't know. Look, why don't you come and see me when we're in reserve? Then we can get a specialist to look at you. I don't think there's anything serious.  Okay, sir. Okay, son. We'll take that stitch out tomorrow. Dr. Peters? Yeah. 1,800, sir. Thanks, sir. If you hurry, you can catch your buddies. They need a man up there who can handle a Zucca. We're moving up at 1,800. Yeah, I know. Hey, Tony, come on. Let's go.


Hi, I'm Jeff Watts and welcome to another episode of Scrum Mastery Challenge. After the last week's episode where our contestants had 20 pounds to spend to increase the agility of a team, we ended up with joint leaders, Sam and Christina. Everyone else is still in touch so it's all still to play for. This week's episode is a bit different and it's more of a mental challenge. Let's see what they had in store for them this time. What do we have here? Okay, I'm getting a little bit more happier with what's going on now. Let's take a look at the next one. Memorise as much information about the people on the table as you can. You will be tested on them in 30 minutes time. The most correct answer wins. So, a memory challenge. Our contestants had 30 minutes to look at the biographies in different formats of four people. And they ranged from videos to CVs, a cartoon and an obituary. Do you want to have a look at the personas yourselves? Now it's revision time. They've each got 30 minutes to learn and memorise as much as they can. Start cramming. It's much harder to remember. I never read magazines with lots of words in and that's because I just lose focus. Because I'm a lot more of a visual learner. I'm just not going to be able to remember this one. Just focus my mind on the ones that I am. I've been excited to see how it was. I wouldn't be easy if this guy hadn't done as much. This is a clear principle of play here. Need to present information in a simple and memorable way. So, it's mastermind time. Aren't you our contestants are confident, do you think? My memory is rubbish. I think my memory is pretty good. Now, there's a mixture of confidence levels there. But it's time to find out whose memory is the best. They all have 20 questions. So, let's see how they did. It's exam time. Oh, B.S.C. Honours is... He graduated from Aberdeen University. B.H. Honours... Signs? Oh, I knew it was Aberdeen. I can't remember. Aberdeen Bachelor of Science in Physics. Aberdeen Physics. Music and English. Drawing? Drawing in English. Do you get favourite lessons at school? No, I don't remember. Music in English. Music in English. I really don't know. E.T. 73. 73. 3rd of October, 1990. 1990. 1990. 1996. No, no, hang on a minute. No, I'll go over 1996. Goes to the beach. E.T. Drinks whiskey. Scotch whiskey. And... Mmm. I drew it down. It was a drink. He's a pair of governor. Is that it? Is that all he does? That was one thing. Point of breach.  Music. Sport. Art. Movies. So he volunteers for the Samaritans. He used to be a governor for his daughter's school. Beach holidays. Watch the rugby and drinks. Scotch whiskey. He likes to watch rugby, I think. Remember rugby. Can't remember any of this. Timo. Audrey. He was a sister. There was André in his first crush. Daughter Avery. Gabrielle. I don't think I'm any good at these memories. Timo. Timo, that was her husband. Is it like Anders? And something like that. That was her boyfriend in college. She didn't marry him. He wasn't the one. Gabriel. Lillian. Aubrey. First crush on André. And Timo. Gabriel. Aubrey. Avery. Timo. Juliet. Gabriel. Lillian. Aubrey. André. Timo. That was the guy in the old photograph. Yeah, I love it. I didn't read it. His wife and children? No, no, no. Laurence Olivier. Duncan McCree. Just was the highest to remember. Laurence Olivier, that was one of them. She liked playing with Lego and she liked Disney movies. And crayons. And Barbies. She liked playing with the sister. She loved dancing. She likes watching Disney films and drawing. She liked colored pens and pencils. Or pastels as the video called them. Yeah. She also liked Disney, Lego, and to build houses out of Lego. Lego and Disney films. And like drawing. And seeing. And dancing. Dancing. And going to the beach. Dancing. And house. He's done quite well for himself. Berkshire. Hull. Hull. Barnsley. McBeth. Lady McBeth. Lady McBeth. Lady McBeth. So 10 questions in and half way through. Freya's currently in the lead by 3 points from Christina and then Sam. Helen languishing 10 points behind. Can she make that up with the final 10 questions? All I remember was that you got kicked out of the RAF. He didn't like his personal life being out there. Because he didn't like the public life. Jeff, he was a bit reclusive. I run this fit. No. No. Because I'm going to say because he moved back to Scotland. But I don't think that's right. When I went to the beach I immediately bronze and everyone called me the black pearl. Debbie? I can't remember. Black pearl? No, don't remember that. It was part of a 1.2 million dollar project but I can't remember what that entailed. Getting paid each month? To do a 1.2 million pound to the data integration project. I mean I deliberately choose to only remember that bit. Managing a 1.2 million pound data company thing. Don't really understand the word. Something about delivering a 1.2 million pound project. Sushi. Sushi. I'm going to take a guess. Acting. Music. Didn't you ask me this one already? Oh I think I've mixed these up. Just go the same again. That was fashion and kitchen. Drama? Want to say new? I don't remember. It was fashion and cooking I think. Did I? Oh we did I. No. No idea. Charles Darwin, Bill Gates, Princess Diana, Billie Holiday and Leonardo DaVinci. Leonardo DaVinci, Princess Diana, Billie Holiday and Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin, Leonardo DaVinci, Princess Diana. That's really annoying I forgot. Charles Darwin, Leonardo DaVinci, Bill Gates, Billie Holiday and Princess Diana. Princess Diana, Charles Darwin, Billie Holiday, Leonardo DaVinci. I can't remember any of this. Forty-five. Do you know? Forty-five. Forty-five. Forty-five. Forty-five. Maccabee. I've wanted to say Maguire. Yeah Maguire, let's go with that. Maguire. Maguire. Disney. Disney. Disney. Disney. Disney. So I think we all did well. There were some exceptional performances from Sam and Christina and especially Freya. So it's having a good memory, important or valuable to us as a scrum master or an agile coach. Well I think so. I think it helps build relationships and develops rapport. It shows we care and we're listening to people which also shows a little bit of respect for them as well. Now we're not looking to remember things like commitments so that we can hold people to account or anything like that but it can be useful to be able to hold that data in our heads of things we've seen or things people have done to be able to play back to them objectively and accurately so that the people that we're trying to help have accurate data with which to reflect upon. A good memory can also help us connect the dots or identify patterns over time. We can hold more data in our heads that we can start linking things together and putting them in the bigger picture of the system that we're operating within which can be helpful to us in analyzing and getting at the root cause of something rather than just focusing on one specific superficial piece of data. I found that we can actually improve and enhance our memory with conscious effort which surprises quite a few people that I work with. One of the big barriers to an effective memory is interestingly enough our self-talk. I come across a lot of people who say things like I'm terrible with names or I've got an awful memory. Whether or not that's true it's probably not helpful because it can become self-fulfilling as a prophecy. If we think we've got a bad memory then we probably won't try as hard to remember things. We've given ourselves an excuse already that we're probably going to forget it. So a first step is just being very careful with the messages that we're giving ourselves and then consciously coming up with a more helpful and positive stance. If you want to increase your memory, here are a few quick tips. First of all, tell yourself it's possible. Get rid of the self-talk that says you've got a bad memory or you're terrible with names. Just believe that you can do it. Start small and remember a few things. Perhaps the shopping list, just from the local shop and then slowly increase the number of things you memorize over time. You'll get better at it. It's a muscle. Perhaps try telling a story to connect the pieces of data that you're trying to remember. A narrative is so much easier to remember than just some random data points. And imagine things visually. Play things out in your head. See things happening. Pictures are much easier to remember than words. And then repeat. In your head just repeat the same things a few times. That repetition will help things sink in.  Just go again. If you're looking to make your message stick with somebody so that they remember it, don't forget you. And perhaps you could take some of the learning points from this exercise forward for you. Make things visual. Make things engaging. Short. Sharp. To the point. And the more that you can connect with the person that's listening, the better it will stick. All in all, I think this was an interesting challenge that sets us up quite well for what's to come next. And with Freya winning this challenge, she now moves back up into third place while Sam reclaims top spot on his own outright. Everyone's still in touch though, so it's all still to play for with just two challenges remaining in this series. Anything can happen. I'm really looking forward to the next episode. I'm not going to tell you why, but I think it's worth tuning in. That's all I'll say. So now though, we're nearly done and all that's left is for me to say thank you and well done to our competitors for another excellent episode and to encourage you to subscribe and keep tuning in for the rest of this series. To get us to Dundun, here are the credits. See you next time.


This is my third lecture on dummy variables. The variables used in regression analysis are generally qualitative, but occasionally we need to it is necessary to use qualitative variables and the dummy variables are used to incorporate the qualitative information in regression analysis. Let me give an example of the use of dummy variable. Suppose you have two sets of data. Well, I forgot to say that you know this the example of qualitative informations or qualitative variable are like employment status or sex whether male or female or the origin from where the data taken whether it is CTA or CTB or CTC. And if there is a significant difference in response level between two sets of data it is not advisable to use a simple linear regression model considering all the data together. So, here in example suppose you have two sets of data this is say for male and this is for female and the data are on two variables say the response variable y and the regression variable x. So, this could be like you know expenditure per month and this is the income per month and you have two sets of data. So, it is not advisable to fit a model like y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x for all the data together because if there is a significant difference in the response between the male data and the female data this is not recommended. So, what we need to do is that we need to incorporate the qualitative information that one set of data is for male and the other set of data is for female. And the model which is recommended here using one dummy variable is y equal to x naught beta naught plus beta 1 x plus z 1 alpha naught plus alpha 1 x plus epsilon. So, of course, you know here we are using two dummy variable including x naught and their value x naught and z 1 is 1 0 for the first set A and 1 1 for the second set B or I said I mean for male and for the female. So, the separate models models for male and female are given by setting z equal to 0 and z equal to 1 respectively. So, the model we recommend is that y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x for male and beta naught plus alpha naught plus beta 1 plus alpha 1 into x for female. So, if you know that you know if the data are given in two sets you fit this model which is equivalent to y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x for male and y equal to beta naught plus alpha naught plus beta 1 plus alpha 1 into x for female. So, you fit this model and then by testing the hypothesis like say h naught equal to say alpha 1 equal to 0. So, if you test the hypothesis that whether alpha 1 is equal to 0 or not that is basically you are testing the appropriateness that whether two parallel straight line can be fitted for two sets of data similarly you test the hypothesis h naught which is equal to say alpha naught equal to alpha 1 equal to 0. So, this hypothesis is testing this hypothesis is equivalent to you are testing the appropriateness of the fact that whether the same model can be fitted for both sets of data or not. And the other one is that you test this hypothesis h naught which is say alpha naught equal to 0. So, this one testing this hypothesis means you are testing whether two straight line with the same intercept can be fitted for two sets of data. Now, if you see that all of them are rejected then you can go for this model I mean this is your final model which fits the data based and if you see that say for example, this one this one is accepted for example, h naught which is alpha 1 equal to 0. That means this indicates that if this hypothesis is accepted that means you can go for two parallel line you can fit two parallel straight line for two sets of data, but with different intercept that means in that case if this is accepted you can go for the model y equal to say beta naught plus beta 1 x plus alpha naught z 1 plus alpha naught. So, this is the model you can fit for the given set of data. So, this is about two sets of data two sets of data and straight line model. Now, we will go for three sets of data and straight line. So, to allow the fitting of three separate straight lines we form the model y equal to 0.  So, this is the model for three sets of data. And we are trying to fit straight line model for each set and here of course, x naught is equal to 1 is a dummy variable and z 1 and z 2 are two additional dummy variables. So, x naught z 1 z 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 and 0 0 this is for the first set this is for set a this is for set b and this is for set c and this can be rewritten as y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x plus gamma naught z 1 plus gamma 1 x z 1 plus delta naught z 2 plus delta 1 x z 2 plus epsilon. So, note that here note that here we have two interaction terms involving dummy variable two interaction terms. So, x z 1 and x z 1 and x z 1 and x z 1 and z 2. So, this is the general model which sort of cover all possible possibilities of fitting three straight line for three sets of data. Now, we can test some hypothesis like since we are given three sets of data whether we can go for three parallel line for three sets or whether we can fit a fit one single straight line model for all the three sets. So, those I mean you can form the appropriate testing null hypothesis to test all these things. So, we will talk about two testing here. So, first one is to test whether three lines are identical we test the following hypothesis I need to write down the model may be once more. So, to test whether three lines are identical that means we have to test whether gamma naught is equal to gamma 1 is equal to delta naught is equal to delta 1. So, let me write down the model once more.  So, this is the model now we want to test whether we can go for a single straight line model whether the three lines are identical to test this hypothesis we need to test this one that gamma naught is equal to gamma 1 is equal to delta naught is equal to delta 1 is equal to 0 against the alternative hypothesis that H naught is not true. I hope that you know how to test this sort of hypothesis for a model like this because this one is nothing but multiple linear regression model. So, you have sort of three regressors you can consider this dummy variable as regressor variable of course it involves some interaction term that does not matter. So, you I hope that you can recall the extra sum of square technique. So, that to test this hypothesis we use the test statistic f which is equal to the SS regression for the full model you know what is the function of the what I mean by this you compute the SS regression for the full model this is the full model minus SS regression for the restricted model. So, what is the restricted model here the model under the null hypothesis. So, the restricted model is y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x. So, that is what the null hypothesis suggest that you go for this model that means the null hypothesis suggest that you go for a single straight line fit for 3 sets of data. So, you compute the SS regression for the restricted model and you divide this quantity. So, this one has degree of freedom this was has degree of freedom this is the full model. So, it has degree of freedom 6 and this one has degree of freedom 2. So, 6 minus 2 it is you divide this quantity by 4 and this by SS residual by residual value. So, this is the degree of freedom that is n minus 6. So, this follows f distribution with the degree of freedom 4 n minus 6 and then the critical region of course, critical region is you reject this null hypothesis if this f value is greater than f 4 n minus 6. So, at some level of significance alpha. So, what is this numerator is basically it is basically the contribution of these parameters or the associated regressor variable to explain the variability in y. Similarly, you can test say to test whether the three are the lines are parallel. That means whether you can fit three parallel line for three sets of data to test this hypothesis you what you have to test you test the null hypothesis H naught that gamma 1 is equal to delta 1 is equal to 0 against delta 1 is equal the alternative hypothesis that H naught is not true and this one also you know same technique you can test this null hypothesis by using the f statistic f equal to SS regression for the full model minus SS regression for the restricted model what is the restricted model that is the model under the null hypothesis. So, here the restricted model is basically you just put lambda is lambda 1 equal to 0 and delta 1 equal to 0 in this equation. So, that restricted model is y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x plus lambda naught z 1 plus delta naught z 2 plus epsilon. So, this is the restricted model. So, you see what is the SS regression under this restricted model and this has of course degree of freedom 6 and this has degree of freedom 1 2 1 2 3 4. So, you divide this by 2 6 minus 4 by SS residual by degree of freedom n minus 6. So, this follows f 2 n minus 6 and of course the critical region is you reject the null hypothesis if f is greater than f alpha 2 n minus 6. Now, what I will do is that so I talked about now at this moment I am talking about suppose you are given three sets of data and I am trying to fit three straight line model for three sets of data and we have just now we talked about you know whether we can go for a three parallel line or whether you can go for a single straight line model for all three sets of data and we learn how to test those possibilities. So, what I will do is that I will explain this if you can recall know we had data called turkey data and there we had three sets of data and I will try to explain whatever I talked just now by using the turkey data. So, here is the turkey data we had and y is weight in pounds x is age in weeks and they are from three different origin. So, we have three sets of data and we are trying to fit straight line model for three sets. So, the model you have to consider is that is a general model is this one z naught into z naught or you can call x naught also no problem. So, z naught into beta naught plus beta 1 x plus z 1 into gamma naught plus gamma 1 x plus z 2 into delta naught plus delta 1 x plus epsilon. So, this can be rewritten in this way. Now, I will just explain you know how to fit how to estimate this regression coefficients here you have six regression coefficients. So, here is the parameter vector beta this involves all beta naught beta 1 gamma naught gamma 1 delta naught delta 1 and here is the coefficient matrix. So, the first one is stands for say you can put here z naught also. So, this is either z naught or x naught you put and this x is for the regressor variable x here and this x is same as the x here. Now, z 1 you know the dummy variable scheme for two sets. So, this is the scheme. So, z 1 is this column z 1 into x you just multiply z 1 with x and you will get the column associated with z 1. z 1 x z 2 you know this is the scheme for the dummy variable for two sets of data and once you have z 2 you can compute z 2 x. So, this is what you know I am just you know explaining how to how to estimate this parameter. So, you have the coefficient matrix x you know this is the parameter you have to parameter vector that you have to estimate you know what is y vector this is the y vector and I am sure that you understand that you know this x and this x is different this is the this is the matrix coefficient matrix and this is this is a regressor variable. So, you can write this multiple linear regression model in this form y equal to x beta plus epsilon and you can see you know that you know for multiple linear regression model beta hat is x prime x inverse x prime y. So, you know what is x you know the x matrix you know y. So, you can compute beta hat and these are the estimates of the regression coefficients. So, this is the estimated I mean this is this is the fit basically. Now, three separate straight lines for first block is this one. So, this one is obtained by by setting z 1 is equal to 1 and z 2 equal to 0 in this fit. Similarly, for the second block the fit for the second block is obtained by by setting z 1 is equal to 0 and z 2 equal to 1 in this equation here in the fitted model here and the fit for third block is obtained by setting z 1 equal to 0 and z 2 equal to 0. And this three fits it says that these are exactly what one would find if one fitted each subset of data separately. So, if you go for say separate fitting for for for separate sets then then you will get exactly the this this fits. And now let me compare this one I see this is this is what we got before this is without using the interaction term. So, this is the model we considered here before this model did not this is basically here we considered that all three lines are parallel. And that means the slope for all three lines fits is beta 1 hat and you can see here we got this is the fit for the first set this is the fit for the second model for the second block. Now, you can compare that you know these are not different too much I mean the fit we obtained here and the foot fit we had before they are not very different, but that means what I am trying to say is that. So, we have fitted a general model and this the feet we got here are not so different from the feet we had before considering that considering three parallel straight line for three sets of data. Now, what we need to do is that we need to statistically test whether this three sets of data for for for for torquey data they really require three different straight line model or or three parallel straight lines are ok for the torquey data. That that we can do statistically by testing a suitable null hypothesis right. So, before doing that I will just write I mean here is the ANOVA table for for the torquey data we had you know this is the total s s t and the degree of freedom is 12 because we had 13 observations and this is the s s regression and s s residual is this one and s s residual degree of freedom is 7 because you know you know that here in the model we we have six parameters and we have six parameters and we have total 13 residuals six parameters means there are six restriction on the residuals. So, so seven residuals can be selected or can be selected you have the freedom of selecting seven residuals and the remaining six residuals have to be chosen in such a way that they follow those six restrictions. So, that is why the residual degree of freedom is equal to seven and then the regression coefficient regression degree of freedom of course, it is five and this is the part of variability which is explained by the model you know this is the total variability in the response variable this is the variability which is explained by this model I mean here if you can recall the the parameter r square is very high I mean most of the variability is explained by this model and here is the f value. So, to check now what I wanted to say is that we have observed that this three straight lines are very similar to the straight line we obtained using by considering three parallel line fit before. Now, we need to test that formally well so our model is the model we are fitting here is y equal to x naught beta naught plus beta 1 x plus z 1 gamma naught plus gamma 1 x plus z 2 gamma 1 x plus z 2 gamma 1 z 2 delta naught plus delta 1 x plus epsilon. Now, to check whether first first we check whether three lines could be identical so three I mean well let me write it to check whether three lines would be identical you test the hypothesis that h naught gamma naught equal to gamma 1 equal to delta naught equal to delta 1 equal to 0 against delta 1 equal to delta h 1 that h naught is not true. So, we have we have the fitted model and now we are trying to we are trying to check whether we really need such a general model or we can just fit a single straight line for all three sets of data so that we will get the answer from from by testing this hypothesis. So, how do we test this hypothesis the F statistics is the SS regression for the full model and SS regression sorry SS regression for the restricted model and by the degree of freedom here it is 4 and by MS residual. So, this is SS residual by residual degree of freedom. Now, if you recall this ANOVA table here SS regression is considering for the full model is 38.711 and of course, you have to compute the SS regression for the restricted model and the MS residual is 0.101 and you can check that for the restricted model what is the restricted model restricted model is y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x. So, you just fit this model for the given data and you see how much of the variability is explained by this model that is what the SS regression for this model you can check that that is 26.20. So, this one is 30.97 and this follows F 4 and the residual degree of freedom is 7. So, this one is greater than F 0.0147 which is equal to 7.83. So, you you refer the tabulated value for F statistics. So, that means this is significant significant means we cannot go for I mean H 0 is H 0 is rejected. So, this test suggest that for for the turkey model you fit a general straight line feed and then you are testing whether this three blocks of data can be fitted by a single straight line and the test here implies that or you know yeah the test says that you cannot go for a single straight line model you have to you have to go for something else. So, fitting a single model for turkey data is rejected next what we will do is that we will test whether we can go for parallel lines to test whether three lines are parallel. To test this we test the null hypothesis H 0 which is gamma 1 is equal to delta 1 equal to 0 against the alternative hypothesis that H 0 is not true. So, similarly we use the F statistics here and that is nothing but S S regression for the full model and then S S regression for the restricted model right and the full model has 6 parameters and the restricted model has 4 parameters. So, 6 minus 4 is 2 you divide it by 2 and by M S. This follows F 2 7 now we know that for the full model the S S regression is 38.711 you have to find this one you know what is the model here. So, that is 38.61 let me write at least the model. So, y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x plus delta naught z 1 plus sorry gamma 1 gamma and delta naught z 2 plus epsilon. So, this is the restricted model. So, you feed this model you find the S S regression due to this model that is 38.6 this is highly any difference. So, this is this 1 by 2 by M S residual that is 0.101 this is equal to 0.5 which is less than F 0.0127 that is 9.55. This is the tabulated value. So, this says that the test is not significant that means we accept the null hypothesis. So, here H naught is accepted. So, the feed is the feed we talked about feed y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x plus gamma naught z 1 plus delta naught z 2 plus epsilon is satisfied. So, this is the S S regression. Well, so let me conclude this part. So, for the Tarki data Tarki data involves 3 sets of observations and what we did here is that first you feed a general model involving 3 dummy variables if it is straight line general model involving 3 dummy variables and then you test whether these 3 lines can be parallel or not. So, from the test here we observe that the hypothesis is accepted that means we can go for 3 parallel line for the Tarki data and based on that based on this test finally we conclude that this model is satisfactory for Tarki data. Well, so this is about 2 sets 3 sets of data straight line feeds. Now, we will go for 2 sets of data quadratic model. Suppose, we have 2 sets of data straight line data on y and x and we are we have in mind a model of the form y equal to beta naught plus beta 1 x plus beta 1 1 x square plus epsilon. So, this is the Tarki data. So, this is Tarki data. So, we have 2 sets of data and we are thinking of fitting a quadratic model for this one. We did not talk about this sort of quadratic model before these are called polynomial fitting, but let me just say that this is not difficult because you just consider x square as say you call it z equal to x square. Then this is nothing but a multiple linear regression model that is all for the time being, but we will be talking about polynomial regression later on. So, here we have 2 sets of data and we are planning to fit quadratic model.  So, this is the same technique we used for linear fitting also, straight line fit. Instead of straight line we are replacing this by a quadratic fit here. So, here the dummy variable scheme is z naught z 1. This is always 1 and this is 0 for a and 1 for b. Now, let me just say that this is the now what we want is that we want to test several possibilities like whether we need 2 different quadratic model for 2 sets of data or we can go for identical quadratic fit for both sets or something else. So, we will be talking about 2-3 possibilities and we will talk how to test them. Now, we test several possibilities.  So, this is the model. Now, to test whether we can go for the same quadratic fit for both sets of data or not, we will test the hypothesis h naught is say alpha naught equal to alpha 1 equal to alpha 1 1 equal to 0 against h 1 that h naught is not true. So, you know how to test this hypothesis by using extra sum of square technique. So, of course, you understood by this null hypothesis that if the null hypothesis is accepted that means we can go for single quadratic fit. So, if h naught is rejected then we conclude that models are not the same for 2 sets of data. So, this is 1, 2. So, if h naught in 1 is rejected then we can go for the same quadratic fit that means we cannot go for the same quadratic fit for both sets. Now, we will check several other possibilities. If this is rejected then you test this hypothesis h naught that is alpha 1 equal to alpha 1 1 equal to 0 against h naught equal to h 1 that h naught is not true. What does it mean is that well the 2 quadratic models are different, but they have different intercept, but the null hypothesis says that they have same slope and curvature. So, it says that if h naught is rejected then accepted here then we conclude that the 2 sets of data have the same slope and curvature. So, this is how you know you can test many hypothesis and many cases. Let me do one more is that if h naught in 2 is rejected then you can now go for you test whether h naught is alpha 1 1 equal to 0 against h 1 that alpha 1 1 is not equal to 0 that means the null hypothesis is that their slope and curvature are not the same. Now, test whether the curvature is same for both the fits or not. So, this says that the null hypothesis said that the model differs only in 0 and first ordered term. That means the curvature is same, but they have different intercept and different slope. So, that is what you can test several hypothesis once you have a model. So, let me conclude this model. So, here the dummy variable in regression analysis is used to incorporate qualitative information in the data. Here we understood that if you have say 3 blocks then you need 3 dummy variables to fit a general model. So, what is recommended is that you know if you have 3 sets of data you should not go for a single straight line fit for all the blocks together. You fit a general model involving dummy variables and then you go for several testing like whether you can go for a identical straight line fit for all the data or you can go for parallel straight line fits for different blocks like that. And depending on the result of your hypothesis testing you choose the final model. So, I hope you understood the use of dummy variable in regression analysis. They are used to incorporate such qualitative information available with the observation and that is all for today. Thank you very much.


30,000 Republicans have left the Republican Party after the Capitol insurrection, 30,000 defections are not nearly enough. But there are 147 in Congress who voted to overturn the election. They did this only hours after the insurrection took place. Now we have Republicans in the Senate who are promising to defeat the impeachment. With McConnell's help, the impeachment will probably fail, and that is a gruesome result. You can say there is disagreement within the Republican Party, but the fact is that the party is still enabling Trump. We will all pay a price for that. Today the FBI issued a terrorism warning, warning us that the right wing will do more violence around the country if Trump is impeached. They call themselves patriots. They tell us they love America. That is not true.  The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and this is a time for us to be even more vigilant than before. Watch Rediscovering America on Think Tech Hawaii and you will see what we mean. Good morning. It's January the 27th. I'm Tim Mappatel, your host. This is Rediscovering America, and again this show is Think Tech Hawaii, and in Think Tech Hawaii we try new things, new technologies, and Jay Fidel has brought just one of those new technologies to the show as of this morning. So without further ado, I'd like to introduce Jay Fidel, Winston Welch, Cynthia Lees Sinclair, and Stephanie Dalton. Good morning, everyone. You know, the words of that introduction was actually pretty profound, and if you think about it, the nation's capital will retain over 20,000 National Guard, potentially up until March of this year. Now what kind of statement does that send to the nation and to the international community that we still have to protect the nation's capital with 20,000 National Guard? Jay, going to you, Joe Biden has had so many things going on this week and a half, his first week and a half of being President of the United States. Everything from wrestling with Mitch McConnell and how they deal with the filibuster or not deal with the filibuster, to getting his appointments put in place, to a plethora of executive orders and addressing the COVID virus, of all the things that Joe Biden's done in the last week and a half, what do you think is paramount and the most important? And why do you think that? They're all important. They run parallel tracks, but you know what? The one that I like most, the one that I'm most impressed with was not on your list. I'll tell you what it was. There's an article this morning about it. He's cleaning house. He's cleaning house with all of the Trump loyalist appointees by the dozens, by the score. He's throwing them out and he doesn't care about the legal implications about their contracts that made them unremovable. He's thrown them all out and he's appointing people to fill all the gaps that Trump left over the past four years. Trump is filling up a hollowed out government. He's replacing all the loyalists with professionals. This is amazing. I think that's the point he's appointing people who their mission is to the country, to the Constitution, to their agency, to their institution, not to Joe Biden. That is the operative point and yeah, he's doing it with light and speed of which many we aren't aware of, of how many he's sweeping house with. Good point. Yeah. I'm impressed with all of them, but that's my personal favorite. Let's talk about the wrestling of power between Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer and how basically the appointments were being put on hold for at least three or four or five days that Mitch McConnell insisted that the Democrats put in writing that they will, they will not abolish the filibuster, the filibuster that Mitch McConnell used so well and effectively during the Obama administration to basically block every bill that Obama wanted to give. But that, that, that tug of war. Well, I, you know, my, my reaction to that is, it's kind of, I felt, I remember in our discussion about McConnell and where he said he would vote for impeachment. He would, he would allow a trial and all that, even though he's no longer the majority leader and remarkable. I didn't believe him then and personally I'm patting myself on the back because I should not, none of us should have believed him. He's got all these angles going on and he's trying to retain control of the Senate. He tried to stop all of Biden's bills and initiatives. He and Schumer is like a genius to be able to get around him this way. So I'm happy with Schumer. I'm happy with Biden and I am, I feel the same way about Mitch McConnell that I did before I'm not going to repeat that on the air. Good point. Okay. Thank you, Jay. Hey, Winston, President Biden has been executing all sorts of executive orders. Many of those executive orders, as Jay has just stated, are reversing many of the Trump executive orders, but there's some new ones in there. And I've, the ones that I think that are very innovative, although they, they kind of sound very political on the surface, but things that Americans have been hoping for and we've, they've been tried before, but they haven't been effective and specifically the one was the made in America executive order and removing the loopholes of why things aren't made in America. And what do you think about that, that particular executive order and some of the other ones that President Biden has put on his desk and has immediately executed in the first few days of his office?  He is entitled to make whatever executive orders he wants to make. And he absolutely has to make out a whole bunch to just stop the damage, reverse the damage that we've seen over the last four years. It's, well, it's impossible, but at least an attempt to try it. Others will be because he owes certain political favors to, to groups. And that's just to be expected. As far as the made in America, or, you know, the pipeline shut down, or this, I saw one this morning where he said he wants to conserve 30% of the land and 30% of the seas and move us towards clean energy. These are sea changes of what we had in the last administration. For example, you know, losing federal land and protection. So it's all going to come out in the wash. But for right now, I think what we talked about before, we give the man a grace period to set the nation straight. Again, there's going to be all kinds of challenges and lawsuits to whatever it is he proposes. So nothing is set in stone right now, but I am very heartened by the decisions that he's been making by representing all the people in this country and advancing this towards a better place. You know, I don't know about you all, but I'm sleeping at nights and grinding my teeth a lot less, just having a stable, sane adult in the White House is incredibly powerful for our nation and for our world. And we have to recognize that. So whatever these, the small or large things coming out of there are. Right now, you know, I'm supportive of the president and his agenda. And we may take issue with certain things, but as a whole, we're moving absolutely in the right direction. Well, I think you you hit something that he is moving with lightning speed. And you're right, there are going to be some challenges, legal challenges. I could think of the Keystone Pipeline as one of them. You know, we had a sovereign, we have an agreement, a legal agreement with the sovereign nation being Canada, and that somehow is going to have to be rectified either through the World Trade Organization court system or there might be up to be some horse training. A lot of people, particularly the Republicans are very upset that this particular policy of Donald Trump's has been reversed or seemingly it's going to be reversed. So we'll see how that plays out. Stephanie, what are your impressions of those things that in the first week and half of Joe Biden's administration has been the most notable and the most important for you to witness? I certainly do want to ditto what Joe Winston said. And I think that having a competent, boring competence at the executive level of the United States government is a context to enjoy for as long as we can. And it also it diminishes the the fright and the anxiety about the continuing post Trump attitudes and expressions that we're having to deal with as we will for quite a long while. So I think that these executive orders are impressive. I that he's doing that and getting it going. It also signals everybody about what he really wants to do. My question has only to do maybe with the Jones Act. I think for Hawaii, that's a big issue because as I understand it and, you know, only American ships can go from American port to American port to deliver goods. And that certainly has impeded Hawaii's cargo tracking. And we could have a lot more service if we were able to have another version of the Jones Act or maybe we're not. We're going to stay with the Jones Act as I understand the position right now. But hopefully it will have some openings for a state like Hawaii. I mean, we have to use only American flagships with their hulls built in on the mainland, actually. So we're we're a little bit discomfited by that. And we also are suffering consequences of that. I mean, all throughout all of the entire Jones Act. So maybe that's a good topic to pursue at some other point, maybe on the state of the state of Hawaii. We should look into the Jones Act to understand the advantages and disadvantages of it for this particular state. So that that was the only one that I had any concern about. Otherwise, go, Joe, keep on going. One more thing I would like to see is a review of this oath taking. And as we just saw in the opening of the impeachment trial, that they're all ahead. Oh, yeah, oath. I make an oath to do this and that and protect the Constitution. And then oh, yeah, I'm coming up to sign my name on it. And then they turn around and walk off and talk about now they don't not going to do a thing about it. And they're certainly not voting for it, even before they hear the facts. So there's a reason for that. And there's a reason for that. And I think we're going to discuss that when we talk about the impeachment trial here in a minute. But there's a reason why they're walking away from it. And and it's pretty obvious to you, I think this panel and in many thousands and millions of Americans are why they're walking away from it. They don't want to be stained by it. And so let's just move on. Nothing to see here. Well, then let's just dump this oath thing. If nobody cares about it, that used to be very important. And let's get on with what's our values here. You know, they want to move forward. Let's move forward. Nobody cares. OK, well, let's let's tackle this one as soon as I get Cynthia's viewpoint on on Joe Joe Biden's first few days first few days here in the office. Cynthia, you had written to me just prior to the show about the Dr. Bricks and her position as being fed some alternative data as it pertains to a covid. Tie that in with President Biden's position on on covid vaccinations and the ramping up of more vaccinations. And given the supply for manufacturers, is that a reasonable thing to do is to ramp up the expectation that more vaccinations will take place if he's not really in control of production of the vaccine? I I think that his heart is in the right place and anything that he does is going to encourage more openness, more I. I all of that I think is important if they can get new new information out to the people even out to the people that are making them. I think that's that's really important. So it's a bold step in the right direction. Dr. Burke's coming out. It's kind of a little too little too late for me in some ways because well, why didn't she come out and tell us all this earlier? You know, she would have been fired. Well, so then she could have gone on the airwaves and told us the truth back then. It would have been really nice for all of America to have this information before they went into the polls to vote. I think I'm glad she's coming out with it now. So I'm kind of torn as far as it goes. Well, I think your position is well found. And that is, you know, your career is one thing and you could get a job somewhere else. But when you know that there's false information being fed, and that ultimate is going to lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans, don't you have a moral and ethical obligation to say my job be damned? I have information of something that is a paramount information to the nation. And if she didn't do it, I'm sorry, but she didn't do it. And that's kind of like we heard from some of the people in the White House that were saying, don't worry, the adults are still in the room or what some of those things were that they would come out and say, we're staying in this job so we can try to keep the rails on, you know. And none of that was really true. They didn't do anything to stop him. He still just plowed through with whatever he was going to do. And, you know, Dr. Fauci, he could have been fired too, right? But he came out and gently didn't push back too hard, but pushed back enough that he did contradict what Trump was saying. Excuse me, what the maniac was saying at the time. So it's, you know, I kind of understand that she wanted to stay and do as well as she could. And at least she could do some good for the people. I don't think she really did much of any good for us either by staying. And so but she could have done a lot good for us by leaving that sort of. All right, now I'm going to go around the table on this one. And Stephanie, I will get back to you on this. I'm just going to kind of go around the table. Jay, we saw the impeachment being delivered to the Senate today this week. And we saw a preliminary vote of whether or not it was constitutional to hold a trial that now that Donald Trump is out of office. We saw 55 senators vote for it, 45 against it. We had five crossover from the GOP to vote in favor of it. Clearly, everyone wants the GOP wants to walk away from this thing. Is this going to further divide the nation? It's not going to help anything. And there's no way that this is going to vote because 45 have already voted against it. So let's move on and any attempts to have a trial is just to divide the country. And if for political purposes only, what's your position on this one? We were talking about before the show and I think you expressed the view that it's much better to have the evidence out. We need to see the evidence. We need to see, you know, what the prosecution, the managers are going to say and what they're going, what evidence they're going to introduce. But then it's going to look really stark to see those Republicans vote against it when it's obvious. And we are all witnesses. You have 300 million Americans and plus, you know, hundreds of millions overseas are witnesses to what happened in detail. And you have the FBI, you know, they're going to testify or they're going to bring in witnesses. We're going to see it all. So now after that, what you have is you have those same guys, the same Republicans voting against impeachment, saying he should be acquitted. It's a substantive decision, regardless of the oath, regardless of the evidence. They're going to say he shouldn't be impeached. The world will remember not only us here, but everyone will remember how how bad that is and will be. The public will have no confidence in the in the Congress, especially the Senate. And worse, the public will have no confidence in the Republicans. They're sticking together. They're supporting Trump even now, even in the face of this obvious evidence. Now, what does that mean? Why do they do that? Why do they support the guy?  And a lot of people are leaving the 30,000, 30,000 Republicans left the party and there'll be more. I think it's the general sluff off of support around the fringes of his base. They're going to leave him.  But you see the problem, the problem, we have to find out why these Republicans are staying in under him. I mean, supporting him. Why are they doing that? And I would refer back to an article that we discussed about three, four months ago by Ann Applebaum in the Atlantic, where she compared this to what happened in Eastern Europe after the war.  And the answer that was seven reasons she gave, but the one that sticks in my mind, the one I believe is the one we should dwell on is fear. These Republicans are afraid. And just as you said, they're afraid of losing their jobs. Their their job is more important than their ethics. And they'll do anything to support Trump because they believe Trump will primary them in the very next election. They'll lose their job. I'm not sure it's true that he can or will primary them, but they believe it, they all believe it, and that's why they're doing it.  OK, thank you, Jay. Hey, Winston, one of the things that stuck out in my mind regarding this impeachment trial was Mitch McConnell refusal to to entertain the the trial before Donald Trump left office. He said, no, we're not going to entertain it. And then as of yesterday, he goes, I'm voting against this because he's left the office. Now, you know, that's a real political maneuver on his part. And he's setting the tone for other GOP senators. How should Mitch McConnell be remembered in all this? Disgracefully, he's his conduct has been disgraceful for well, the last 10 years. But it's it's a shame. I expected more from him, but he's a consummate politician and he's he's playing that till he's been in charge for so long. It's it's sad to see. And it's not up to them to decide whether this is constitutional or not. We have a Supreme Court that would decide that. But I think what they when the vote came right down to it and it was 55, I think the 45 or something like that, that just about reflects the public opinion on this, which goes, I think I read something. I don't know if it's Newsweek or PBS, where it was 56 percent of folks said in the country overall that Donald Trump should be impeached. So they're they're roughly mirroring the the general public. Now, that said, this general public has been misinformed, misled and lied to for years. And when they're when the media sources, you know, you have Fox News or other sources of America One or whatever it is that they're getting one perspective, it doesn't help in this process. But I was deeply disappointed in Mitch McConnell's where he should have let this be a vote of conscience of members so that they could be free to then have the party move on to whatever it's going to do. It's obviously going to split into two pieces, no matter what he does. He might as well take this pain now and let people act honorably and and move on if he wants to preserve whatever semblance is left of a principled Republican Party. And they're going to have to dig back deep in their roots to find that one, because they really lost their way. He should have done it right now, but he didn't. And we'll see where I'm not hopeful at this point that that Donald Trump will be impeached. But you know what? There's a lot of news that's going to be coming out in the next couple of weeks. And we're already seeing the dribs and drabs every day. Good point. Thanks, Winston. Stephanie, you had mentioned what good is the paper that oath of office has written on, particularly when it comes to this particular topic of the impeachment and the trial of the impeachment. What good is the paper it's written on if it's not being followed? And, you know, the evidence will speak for itself. The evidence is already quite obvious. Yet this is what pertaining to what Jay said is this. I think it's a matter of fear. They're afraid. And I don't think it's just afraid that they will be primaried. I think it's afraid that they'll be castigated in the restaurants and on the sidewalks of where they live. They're worried about what, you know, the Trump followers are going to, you know, yell at them or like we've seen at the airport, what they're going to be yelled at or spit a spat upon. You think that plays into it? Well, I think there is another variable in addition to those you mentioned, which are certainly influential for them. The really big, important, strong and influential variable is their support from donors. These people have made your donors that are have allowed the money to flow into Senator Cruz and Holly's pockets. Well, you know what, as far as I'm reading, which is not everything, a lot of that is changing. Thirty three major Republican donors are pulling back on this insurrection move that they made and the leaders of it, especially Holly and Cruz. And there may be some effect here. And if this is where the money goes, follow the money. That's a lot of money that there's the root of all evil. Why are they staying firm on their 45 senators that aren't going to even give the trial a chance in their mind? They haven't found out yet about whether their funding is going to dry up. So I think that what's going on is that this is recent, that this has come up, that the Watergate followed the money thing. So now that these big funders, these big millionaires and corporations are saying, no, X-nay. OK, and the Facebook and all of that. So with that that kicking in, I think that we might see some change in attitudes. And on this point, thank you, corporate America and all you billionaires out there. If you're the only the only things that have any honor or courage and all of that, then all of those important values that this administration is attempting to bring back. If you're going to support that, well, let's go. Where for that? All right. Hey, Stephanie, I really like those comments. And I think you're right. I think once they realize how much money is going to dry up, they may just switch their vote. Who knows? Cynthia, do you agree with Stephanie on that point? I do. I do. And I have some really good quotes from Chuck Schumer when he was interviewed by Rachel just this last week. First, he said, and so there's things that are in between some of these quotes I want you to know. I didn't, he didn't say all of this in one fell swoop, but I picked some things out that I thought were important. He called Trump the worst president ever. He said, I hope he is found guilty. He said, there is more than sufficient evidence to convict Trump. Now, when Rachel asked him about McConnell, he said, and I love this. My caucus is united in not letting McConnell dictate what this Senate will do. He first went to McConnell and said, you know, let's go do it like they did in 2001 when Dashiell and Locke, you know, had to come together. And when it was a 50-50 like that, they had to work together. Well, you know, McConnell then went on to say, you don't protect the filibuster. I'm not doing it. Well, this is what he had to say. Not giving in to McConnell. Stay tuned. No, that's right. That's right. He did. That was a great interview, actually. And I thought it was real with him. And then when when Rachel tried to, you know, press him on getting more details, he said, no details. So he said the trial, he wants it to be fair, but not dilatory. And then in the middle of this interview, because it was, you know, the interview was filmed before the show was was aired. She comes on in the middle and says that McConnell has folded on his filibuster demand. So he caved. So that's a big sign. That shows something if McConnell would fold on that. Well, first, I don't trust anything he says. So what why did he do it? I'm always suspect everything he does. But but the fact that he folded may be a precursor to the fact that he knows there's things he can't do. And so yeah, well, we also know that Joe Manson and I forget who the other senator is, is not in favor of eliminating the filibuster. That might have something to play with it, but we'll see. It's said, Amai is the other one. Mancha and Amar, the two. They are. Yeah. OK, thank you. Hey, we only got about a minute and a half left. Jay, I want to go to you real quick about Joe Biden's conversation with Vladimir Putin and the things he specifically discussed, particularly, you know, the Russian hacking and the bounty on US soldiers and the poisoning of his opponent. So a whole host of things were brought up in this conversation. What a breath of fresh air. We finally got to see a president United States stand up to Vladimir Putin. We haven't seen that in five years. Your impression, please. Oh, I'm delighted. I'm delighted the fact that he raised these things. Putin wasn't going to, you know, bend over about it, but he had to listen to it. And what we had was a real president. It was a real president, long and coming, talking about these agenda points and articulating a point of view on each one, which will maybe slow Putin down in the future. We need to have that kind of tension. We need to have Biden do that, not only now, but later on when Biden tries something fancy again. So we've drawn a line in the sand, you know, in terms of foreign policy with Russia. I want to add one other thing is that I'm I'm concerned. I know it's my last time to speak here today. I'm concerned about the covid relief act. I'm concerned that whatever we say about, you know, Schumer and Mitch McConnell. Fact is those Republicans are going to oppose Biden's covid relief act. And that is a disaster for the country. Individually, in terms of health, in terms of the economy and very worried about that, and that could be a big stumbling block. And at that point, what does Biden do? And this is a rhetorical I hope we can cover in future shows. What does he do? One possibility is he goes to the public. He says, I can't do anything, you guys. The Republicans are stopping me at critical moments. You have got to write your congressman. You have got to weigh in on this. I need your help. I think that's what he might do. Yeah, Jay, didn't Chuck Schumer say they have other tools in the toolkit and through the budgetary process, they could get through the stimulus package? Well, he said it. We'll see. We'll see. Yeah, good point. OK, thank you, Jay, very much. Hey, Winston, last comments for the last first week and a half of the Joe Biden, President Biden's administration. Oh, you know what? Like I said earlier, I'm sleeping at night. I'm thrilled that we're moving forward as a nation. We're moving forward positively. People's, you know, it's not just it's not just for one person. This is the nation is moving forward positively. We still have remnants like the speaker at the beginning of the show said the the the government did put out a warning that we have these doves domestic violence extremists out there. I've named them doves, but they're not doves, obviously. And that we got to we have to worry about that. That's a direct legacy of the last four years. We're moving beyond that. It's time to just move beyond that with the old in with the new. And this is a breath of fresh air and just seeing that man behind the desk and all of the competent, qualified folks that he's installed in office is it is just heartening. Thank you, Winston. Hey, Stephanie, give you an option, either your last comment or your prediction for the week to come. Well, I see that that that pushback, that resistance is possibly there. But if the if we're going to get on the same page now, I think maybe that's one of the ways that the the impeachment trial will help. OK, so we've already said this, that we're going to have everybody on the same page with the same evidence and the same information. OK, and then with with Biden talking about a sheen and talking about other tools in the toolkit. OK, so if these donors and corporate America want to make any statements or be of help, they're already enormously helpful in knocking these jerks off and they have no no First Amendment in prohibitions to do that. So they've already kicked in a lot. But maybe they can come up with some box. That's where the deep pockets are other than the federal government. So if the Republicans won't vote for something like this, COVID Act, this is a national emergency topic and issue. Now, maybe we can go get some money elsewhere and get some other people to buy into it. Maybe there's a little bit of George Bush's privatizing America coming back, which was. But I don't know. This is getting desperate and we don't want people to suffer. We want this. These people back doing what they do best, their work, their homes, their schools and let's get on with America. All right. Great words. Hey, Cynthia, you get the last word either your prediction for the next week or your comments about where we've been this week. OK, well, actually, this is a little bit bigger than just this last week in it. And it's sort of a follow up on something that I've been following for over a year. OK, and it's about that whole Dominion voting thing. Dude, for all of the things that have wrecked their business, I'm like, oh, gosh, they could probably maybe sue me, too, because I said things like that. I fell for that line. But this is the thing we think that that just this this this whole misinformation thing started with Rudy Giuliani started at the end. I go back a year and a half. That's how deeply they embed this misinformation stuff. So one more plea to people, please be careful. Really, that everything you read and then go, Dominion, go get him. I saw the interview with the CEO and he seemed pretty determined to extract his fair share out of Rudolph Giuliani and the like. So we'll see how that plays out. All right, we've run out of time. I'd like to thank everyone here on the show, J. Fidel, Winston Welch, Stephanie Dalton and you, Cynthia. See us next week, Wednesday at 11 o'clock for Rediscovery in America. I'm Tim Apachele. See you then. Aloha.


Welcome to our OpenTalk series. My name is Teri Zatzuga and I'm the research lead of the AI and Society Lab. I'm leading an interdisciplinary research group that wants to find out how AI can serve the public interest. And pretty early in our research we understood that this is such a big and complex question that we cannot solve it completely by ourselves. So in this series of conversations we speak to people who bring in their experiences and their research to find out the limits and the potential of AI to serve the public interest. We really hope you enjoy these conversations. So I will talk about automatic decision-making systems in the public sector and I will briefly talk about legal aspects and mainly about ethical aspects. I said automatic decision-making systems. This is because we usually prefer to use that term over AI because we think it gives the system less power in the sense that we think we strongly believe that the final decisions should always lie with a person. We looked at opportunities for ADM in the public sector, which of course the first that always comes to mind is an easier workflow for within the administration. This is good for the people working there because it makes things easier, more efficiency. This is good for the budget of the Compton. It costs less money if it's more efficient. But also there's a better quality of service and this is something that if I, for example, as a mother apply for support from the Compton for child care, this is very convenient for me as a working mother if I can do this on the weekend or in the evening and not just during office hours of the public ministrations, we usually collide with my working hours. Of course there's also challenges. We looked at those as well. The big thing is bias and discrimination, which needs to be avoided. Also, then there's missing comprehensibility. This is a problem for the people living here because you don't usually always know what those systems do or one actually not even when such a system is in place or how they work. I will shortly say something about the legal framework. The thing that it's mandatory that you know when your data is being used. There should be an information. It's also in the law for the Canton of Zurich. The problem is there is not really always a law that ensures this also for ADM systems. This might be different in different places of the world, but it's definitely something that one should look at before issuing ADM systems in the public sector because this needs to be guaranteed. Then there's the question of transparency. There should be a public register for ADM systems in use in the public sector. Then there's also a recommendation based on the legal framework that there is in place that there should be not a full automatization because every decision taken within the public administration should always be taken by a person. This is because of the accountability. This needs to be solved. Who is accountable if a chatbot gives out information that is not correct? Now I'll talk about ethical questions. As you probably know, there have been numerous recommendations on how to deal with AI in the public sector. What they all share is that they give valuable advice for an ethically acceptable use of these systems. But some of these frameworks we feel do some kind of calculation or something of something like an ethics score or a label. A lot of these are based on questions that use categories such as sometimes or very subjective. Another problem that we see very often is that usually the assessments of these systems are exposed assessments. So when the system is already in place and life at a point where usually not much can be changed about the system. Also, it's very often a snapshot. So the system goes live. It's being assessed at this point and the situation that we have then. And it will not cover anything that has happened before. So what we did for our approach, we try to suggest to accompany a project already during the planning and test phase and also during operation, not just at the point where it goes live. We don't do scores or labels. We try to react to possibly difficult aspects or problems as they appear as they are seen. And what we do for that is we write a transparency report which documents every consideration made during all the different phases of a project so that all the decisions and discussions are somewhere there and can be reconstructed and are available for questions. What is also a very important point is that transparency, which is a word that you hear everywhere. Whenever you discuss anything close to that, for us, it's not a means to an end. It's not the goal for us. Transparency is something that helps us to ensure that we reach the ethical principles that we would like to meet. Our open talks are open for collaboration. Contact us to get involved.