Hey there friends, how's it going? My name is Kevin and this video is sponsored by Rogue Company. I've already actually played it, I'm doing the intro afterwards and it is a fantastic game. I had a brilliant time and I met some lovely people, including one nice Amish man. But I'm very interested in this game also.  Yes, because you're Amish. Yeah, yeah. Yes. Yeah, yeah. Rogue Company is free to play and you can get it by clicking the link in the description below. It's available on the Epic Games Store, Xbox One, PS4 and Switch. As I said, it's free so you got nothing to lose. All right, let's jump in. I'm ready for more pain.  That is so nice. I forgot about the rest though. They just put in the little stash. Most people don't even realize I have a bit of a stash. All right, let's jump in. Who reminds you most of me? I'm thinking Glitch. My parents used to call me a glitch. A glitch in the family tree. Maybe Kaak. Reminds me of me a little bit. No, I'm going to go with Bletch. He looks cool. All right, let's see who's the unlucky team who gets me.  I'm going to start doing entrance like that for my videos. Hello everyone. Are you ready to win? I hope that's the spirit. Oh God, I'm nervous. There's barbed wire or something down. I don't know what's happening. I probably should have looked into this a bit more. Lovely kitchen though. Lovely open plan. I love it. Although I imagine depending on the climate, it might get a bit cold. That's my official review for the game. That's the target down. Yeah, that's a two streak.  Guys, we did it. Do you think they were even trying? I'm bleeding out. Nope. We're like celebrating the cat and the poor Vickers off in the kitchen dying. Look at this. My reputation went up. It's probably due to my friendliness and not my skills. I got three eliminations, but that's not actually kills. Like they were already on the ground and I finished them off. Got insert in well. Insert. You did fantastic. I don't know if you can hear me. Insert. I'm going to get the megaphone. The new update as of October 1st has introduced this person. So I'll try this out. There's apparently a new map as well. I mean, they're all new to me. Did I lose insert? Insert is gone. All right. I'll make new friends. I'm in charge. No, don't say that. Don't say that. I'm not in charge. Hello, everyone. Don't listen to my character. I'm here to follow, not to lead. He's just confused in general. I like that I don't get punished for just nose diving into the ground on this game. It's very forgiving. I like the cover system as well. I'm very Heidi, Heidi. I'm over here playing hide and seek as my team is dying. Oh, look at that. I must be an enemy in the A team because I missed every single shot. All right. You know what? I've been playing a lot of shooters recently. I got to get my head in the game and actually help my teammates instead of playing hide and seek because I feel like I have to make a difference here to actually win. All right, guys. Follow my lead. I'll take point here. Let's get into an arrow formation and attack their flanks. That's the spirit. No one responded. All right, here comes the flank.  What do I do? What? I'll try. What do I do? All right, fine. I'll just start shooting. Uh-oh. One second. Wait till I reload. Okay. Thank you. Don't follow that maneuver. Oh, god, I did stuff though. That was kind of nice. I was just like, is there a melee or something I can do? But I just, I got overwhelmed. I didn't have enough bullets. Okay. Let's head over to that A bomb site. I've learned they're no good up close. So if we close the distance, we can take them. I believe in you guys. Can I get a hurrah? Thank you. That was the lamest hurrah I've ever gotten. No, no. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. I'm doing things. Okay, great. Oh, yes. I used my teammate as human shields there. See that? That was a pretty neat move. I am liking this already. I feel powerful. All right, let's get some perks. What do we got here? Downing an enemy reloads your current weapon. That's perfect. That's exactly what I need. Uh-oh, uh-oh, reload. Okay. And my perk kicks in. Uh-oh, uh-oh, uh-oh. Okay. Okay. How do I throw a grenade? Ah, ah, Jesus. They frighten the life out of me. There's my grenade. There's the down. Where are they, chief? Tell me. Oh, they're all dead. Okay, hold on. You're with me. Hold on. Sorry. I just let them die. They're just crawling towards the bomb like, please? We got it. Oh, I just did nothing for them. Nice one. Thanks, chief. I really think it was your hurrah earlier that motivated me. So thanks for that. Continuing the strategy of going the completely wrong way. Oh, I almost killed myself. All right, let's continue my strategy of not killing myself and going the completely wrong way. He's got them looking the wrong way. Hold on. Go to revive him. Go to revive him. Yeah, yeah, go, go. The flank is real. Oh, all right. Now the flank is real. Guys, I've been flanking really well. He's on the bomb. Area clear of hostiles. Look at that. We're the best team I've ever seen. Admin, Epic.  He's seeing what I can do, and he wants more. Can you hear me? I can hear you, chief. Figuring this game out. Don't worry, me too. What a nice team. Oh, no. Oh, no. People out. I killed someone. He's down on the bomb site. We got to move in. Let's do this, team. Bomb disarmed. Good job, everyone. If this wasn't pushed to talk, I would be clapping right now. I'm going to flank around. I'm having major success with that strategy. I'll see you on the other side. They're going to think I'm way too into games. To be fair, I do play games every single day. So maybe I am too into games. Where are you? There you are. Oh, no. Oh, no. I'm down. I pressed the wrong button. I tried to throw grenade at them, and I just threw them a smoke grenade. At best, I gave them secondhand smoke, which isn't the immediate death we need. That guy, the big guy, he is ready for my flanks now. I got to be careful. Come on. Come to mama. All right. I better go left inside. Clean help. Oh, God. They're all over. They're all over. Feck, feck, feck, feck. I choked. Okay. We can do this. We can do this. I'm not on edge at all. I'm doing fine mentally. Look at this. Not nervous at all. I've got this under control. Oh, God. I might have actually been shaking. Screenshot my hand, so it looks like I'm not shaking. Look at that. Not nervous at all. Where is he? There he is. Yes. Good job, team. That's the way we do it. No one else is as happy as I am. But that's okay. You're allowed win and be miserable. That's fine. How did I do? I felt like I did really well there. 14 eliminations, 11 downs, and one de-hacks. I came first in all categories. Look at this. I am a gamer. This is what we call an epic gamer moment. All right. Who am I going to be this time? I want someone fast, because I liked the flanking in the game. Duelist win. Okay. He's a duelist. I'll go him. Lock in. An Amish gamer. That's a great name. I don't know how that would work. Wait a second. An Amish gamer. Something's amish here. Do you get it? Amish?  You're slipping. Oh, I almost have him. Come on. You can get him. Yes. I love the Amish. They're so good at technology and gaming. Oh, there we go. Hell, yeah, yeah.  I'm an Amish gamer, bro. Come on. That's all right. I assume it took you a while to figure out, you know, technology is new to you. I understand. Yeah, yeah. I have a hamster and a goat. A hamster on a wheel. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I get it. I get it. Great job back then, by the way.  First part of the game, I was AFK, because I was like, wait, what button did you switch off? You were taking care of the Baron. Yeah, you were doing your Baron building. I was right to say, I hope this doesn't offend any Amish people, but I'm pretty confident no Amish people are going to be watching this video. I think I'm safe. Okay, go, go, go, go, go. We can do this. Good job, Amish gamer. I never knew the Amish were so good at gaming, to be honest with you. Well, I mean, we're the best at gaming.  Yeah, it makes sense now that I think about it. And honestly, like I'm new to this game, so we got matched together, but I'm clearly not in your skill level. So I guess I don't normally run into the Amish for that reason. Exactly, yeah, yeah. But I'm brand new to this game also.  Yes, because you're Amish. Yeah, yeah. Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is great. I'm running into some fantastic people in this game. All right, I'm going with the flank. I'm going all the way around again. It's a good strategy. It's working well so far. Wait for it, wait for it, wait for it. Oh God, I'm getting shot. Don't wait anymore. Where is he? He's behind me, isn't he? Someone shot at me, someone shot at me. Go here. Look at that. You just can't beat the Amish. I think I'm Amish. I think I got a little Amish in me. I'm doing really well.  Excuse me? All right, I mean, what? I didn't say anything. Oh, okay, my mistake. I just like to point out that I am undefeated in this game so far. And it's looking like it's going to stay that way. This boy, am I good? And another one down, and another one down. Another one bites the dust.  Another one bites the dust. So this sort of feels like to be good at games, huh? It's great. I love it. The serotonin is through the roof. Downing an enemy healed? Oh, yes. Give me that. Life dream.  I do stream, but I am not streaming now. I'm just enjoying your company. Yeah, you do have the streamer voice though. Well, thank you. He's a bit of a charmer, isn't he? Well, I wouldn't know what streaming is, so can you? Oh, yes, because you are Amish. So you would not. Yeah, you wouldn't know what it is. Yeah, that's a good point. You meant like, are you streaming? Like, are you going down to the stream? Which I am. I will be going down to the stream. My Amish friend. He's behind you. Oh, wait, he's coming. He's coming. I don't have much time.  That must have broken his heart. His poor little Amish heart. He did it.  Hey, for an Amish person, you were very quick at hacking, which is odd. Yeah, yeah. He can't even explain that one. Maybe his hamster stopped running in the wheel. Oh, he was great. I love that game. How did we do? Look at this. I'm doing well. I'm so proud of myself and my Amish friend. All right, let's try one other game mode. Let's see. What do we got here? Let's try demolition. That sounds fun. Can I pick the map? Oh, that's the new map lockdown. It looks like a prison. I want to play on that one. All right, well, we will leave it up to Faith. I thought I was watching a Bond movie for a minute, but it's Skyfell, not Skyfall. All right, who will I be this time? I kind of liked him. He seemed really good, but I'll try someone else just to mix it up. Scorch. That is a cool name. I just realized you can upgrade the weapons as well after you get them. I've just been buying everything. My bad. Oh, it looks like they're going to the other bombsite. I don't know. Should I leave? I should probably leave. Oh, God. Yeah, everyone is dying. Oh, no. I'm the last one left. I got this. At least my character is confident. She shouldn't have been there. I still think my favorite thing is just rushing that perk that just auto reloads. That thing is amazing. Well, no, my favorite thing is an Amish gamer. But my second favorite thing is that perk. Hey, any Amish people here? Oh, my God. I'm doing awful all of a sudden. All I can think about is Amish gamers. I can't do this. Oh, no, Kevin. Come on. I'm so cocky this whole video. I got to do well. This person's dancing. They don't care that we're losing. All right. I'm going to stay with the team this time. Pee-blum-pee. Pee-blum-pee. I'm coming. I'm coming. Oh, God damn. Everyone's dying. I killed someone, guys. I did it. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, no. Oh, I almost had him. We are getting crushed. It's the game mode. It's not to do with skill levels. It's just because I'm new to the game mode. That's it. Here we go. Oh, my God. I just got destroyed. All right. Let's grab some armor and let's do this. This is our last chance. Oh, wait. No, we've got a few more rounds. We've got plenty of more last chances. I'm the best. I don't know if saying I'm the best is even boasting at this point. The bar is low. The person with the most kills is two. Yes. Yes, yes, yes. I got a kill. First place here. I come. Come on. Almost dead. Almost dead. Yes. Okay. They're down. They're down. They're down. Gone for good. All right.  I downed one of them, but the other was planting. He got me. All right. At least I got two kills that time. This is evening it up for a 2v2. Close enough. That was our closest round yet. At least I'm pulling off into the lead of my own team. That's something. All right. Back to Kayak. Shouldn't we stick together here? Let's stick together, team. We got one last round to show them what we got. That's one down. Maybe it's just easier to attack. Maybe that's it. Yep. It's definitely easier to attack. You see that? I couldn't have done that when I was defending.  I got one, but that's the round. Well, it would appear I'm back to sucking at games. It's like a cartoon. Everything ends up the same at the end of the episode. All right, we're going to end it there. I hope you enjoyed. I did have a blast. I met so many new friends along the way. I love the internet. I really do. Honestly, as bad of a rap as some multiplayer games get, you meet some really nice people online in games sometimes. And you get some really nice people watching me as well. I appreciate it, folks. Thank you for checking out my video. I really do appreciate it. If you want to see more of me, I post every single day. If you want to check out Rogue Company, as I said, there's a link in the description. You can download it for free, Epic Games Store, Xbox One, PS4 and Switch, whatever you may choose. I appreciate you watching. I hope you enjoyed. It means a lot to me. And yeah, that's about it. I hope to see you next time, folks. Bye for now.


Felly, yna 11.26. Rydyn ni wedi cyfnod a'r bwrdd yn fawr yn ysgrifwyr ar draws byddai 35 ymlaen. Felly, rydyn ni'n gallu fod yn ymgyrch. Fy oedd iawn, rydyn ni'n haner. Rydyn ni'n gefnod i'r ddau. Rydyn ni'n gweithio'r cynhyrchu o'r byd, a'r gwneud o'r bwysig yn rhaid. Rydyn ni'n ffasgau ymwysig o'r bwysig o'r lefnod ymlaen. How many times have you seen that this week? This is exactly the same as all those others. Before we get started, I just wanted to briefly mention a monumental moment that happened this morning and celebrate it. I achieved inbox zero. Yes, that's right. I know I am that good at my job. I have got through all of my email in one morning. Of course I'm joking because my job is a lot more than just reading and responding to email, but how many of us have ever shared a little brief moment of triumph when we make an achievement like that, when we get through our inbox and how ridiculous that feels. And it's not just email that's the problem. It's all of the different technology that we use and so today I'm going to talk about how we can manage our relationship with those application of those technologies better to not just improve our productivity but to improve our wellbeing. It seems ridiculous but a lot of us spend up to 50% of our time reading and responding to email and messages. No one's ever going to ask you that in an interview. No one's ever going to orient you in a new team and say, oh hey, by the way, in this organisation we check our email 36 times an hour. But that's exactly what most of us do. A recent study by the University of New York found that the average worker in an office environment will check their email 36 times an hour. Does anybody really need to do that? And of course, it's not just email that's the problem. We've got so many more mediums and applications that we use to communicate and talk to each other that we actually end up communicating with people via different channels about different topics simultaneously. And all of these technologies are competing for our attention day in, day out and nobody is immune to this kind of digital disruption because this is the digital disruption of our minds and how our brains are working. So, like I said, today I'm here to talk about information overload, interruptions and distraction. I'm going to share some of the things that I've tried to try and break out of this cycle and a little bit of the science around why we even behave like this. But first I just want to share a few more startling statistics about the way we use our technology today. So the average person checks their phone 80 times a day. If you're a millennial, you're actually more inclined to do that. You're more inclined to check your phone more like 150 times a day. A recent piece of research done by Dscout found that the average user will touch their smartphone. They might not even open it but they'll just touch it. 2,617 times a day and if you're one of the heaviest users it could be up to 5,427. We're addicted to our devices and we find it really hard to disconnect. As employees we generally experience only 11 minutes of uninterrupted focus at any one time. And when we are interrupted it takes an average of 23 and a half minutes to regain focus and resume the task that you were doing previously. And when you think about all of this you start to wonder how does anything ever get done. And that's exactly how a lot of us feel during our working lives. How many times have you got to the end of the day and you've sort of reflected on what you achieved and you haven't actually started your real work. You haven't actually started that one big thing that you thought you were going to crack on with that day because you've been doing busy work instead.  And in the context of working in technology I think this is an even greater problem because as developers and engineers we really hate interruptions and we find them even harder to manage in our day to day work than a lot of other people. I think we can all relate to that feeling where you're maybe trying to root cause an issue or you're trying to solve a problem and you have that flicker of a light bulb moment in the back of your mind and you think you might be onto something and then all of a sudden you're interrupted either in person or through a notification and you lose that thread and you're so frustrated in that moment and it takes you maybe five, maybe ten, you know, 23 and a half minutes to actually get back to where you were before you were interrupted. I think Joel Bolski, CEO at Stack Overflow put this really well. I don't agree with everything he posts online but he says developers need to concentrate. The more things you can keep in your head at once, the faster you can code by orders of magnitude. And I think this just really highlights that we kind of all understand this as a shared problem. We understand that as a profession we need to be able to concentrate and focus to do our best quality work and sometimes we're not creating the best environments for ourselves to do that. One study that measured the productivity across 10,000 developers found that as a programmer you're likely to just get one uninterrupted two-hour session of work in a day. And when I read this I thought two things. I thought that's really bad and then I thought my team don't even get that. You know, for some people one uninterrupted two-hour session would be an amazing thing but imagine if we could improve this only slightly. Imagine the benefits that we would have in terms of what we could achieve as individuals and as a collective, as an organisation. And I know what you're thinking. This doesn't apply to me and actually I'm really great at multitasking. I can do all of these things at once and it doesn't affect my productivity. I'm actually quite good at this. And so many people have said that to me but I'm here to tell you that the cognitive losses from multitasking are greater than the cognitive losses from smoking weed. You might as well be sat at your desk getting high if you're sat there multitasking. It's actually been demonstrated that context switching so frequently and multitasking throughout your day can reduce your IQ by up to 10 points. No one wants that but the problem is, as I said, a lot of us feel like we're actually quite good at it and that's because our brains are lying to us.  Our brain is a little dopamine addict and we're getting these tiny little chemical rewards every time we task switch, every time we do this busy work which actually isn't maybe achieving very much and we're being rewarded for it. It's actually been shown that the people who believe they're good at multitasking are actually the worst at it because they have a greater addiction to this dopamine than maybe someone who does consider the multitasking to be a problem. Not only that but multitasking increases the production of stress hormones so we're talking about cortisol and adrenaline and if we overproduce these hormones it can actually impact the clarity of our thinking. It can leave us feeling confused and having scrambled thoughts. So multitasking isn't just bad for productivity, it's actually bad for you physiologically as well. And if the little dopamine addict in your head isn't bad enough, self-interruption is a thing as well. So if your brain doesn't have any interruptions going on at any one time, actually it doesn't really matter because it'll just interrupt itself. The same goes the neurons that fire together, wire together. So the more we take on this busy work, the more we go into this multitasking mode, the more habitual it becomes. So the more likely you are to self-interrupt. Have you ever picked up your phone for no apparent reason? There was no notification, you've just picked up your phone and you've opened it, you've started doing something completely separate. I do this and I get incredibly frustrated with myself and I'm like why am I on Twitter again? Put the phone down. And the other thing about self-interruption that I find fascinating is that it increases proportionally to the amount of external interruption that you experience during your day. So the more you are interrupted, the more you are going to interrupt yourself. So the more notifications we receive, the more fire and forget emails that we receive, the more email we send, the more we and our colleagues are going to self-interrupt during the following hour after we do that. So we're creating this vicious cycle where we're all doing this busy work and we're actually all causing each other to interrupt more. If it's not external, then it'll be internal. But this is not a talk about productivity, although there for sure is a productivity problem for a lot of people now due to the relationship with technology. There are actually emotional and physiological consequences of this behaviour and of this relationship with technology. So I'm going to talk about some of those for a while. Has anyone heard of email apnea? So the term email apnea was coined over 10 years ago by a researcher called Linda Stone at Microsoft. And the definition of email apnea, and probably if you extend that into the technology environment today, we should just call it application apnea, is the shallow breathing or breath holding while doing email or working or playing in front of a screen. And I think this is really interesting because I notice myself doing it too. Now that I know it's a thing, I notice it and you might notice it when you go back to your desk.  I don't change how I breathe when I'm working in front of a screen, but you do. 80% of us do. And the problem, we're changing such fundamental things like how we breathe, how we're taking oxygen. It can influence our stress levels. It can influence our emotional well-being. And all of those things impact our ability to work effectively. It also affects how well we sleep. A lot of us sleep with our phones next to our beds. And a recent study that was done in the UK found that one third of UK adults checked their mobile phone during the night. So we're not even unplugging when we're supposed to be resting and recharging. We're checking our mobile phone during the night. Do any of your colleagues expect you to be doing that? I mean, genuinely. And part of the environment we're working in today means that we do work with people all over the world. And we have this notion that we need to be always on and always available, always connected. And we can neglect fundamentally important things like sleep as a result. Some other stats, 10% of us check our phones as soon as we wake up or hold my hand up. I do that. 52% of us check our phones within 15 minutes of waking. And reading from a device that emits blue light just before bed can actually impact the production of melatonin. So this is your natural sleep hormone. And that impacts the quality and duration of your sleep. We're having very real physiological impacts on our bodies when we engage with our devices in this way. And just in case you forgot, I hope you haven't, sleep is really important. Lack of sleep can be linked to obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, as well as a host of other medical conditions. We need sleep so much. There's also an emotional aspect to how we engage with some of our applications that goes a little bit deeper than just a little flutterings of jealousy when we see that someone's having amazing time on holiday or on Facebook. Is anybody heard of FOMO? FOMO is the fear of missing out and I think these are highly connected lives result in a lot of FOMO. There's always something going on, there's always something new and the urge to find out what that is can be overwhelming and it can be addicting. Being disconnected from your smartphone can cause feelings of anxiety and stress. I saw an amazing talk the other day where the speaker, I think he was a technology psychologist from ThoughtWorks and he said that we're basically already cyborgs. We don't say my phone battery is dead, we say my battery is dead. We don't say my phone is disconnected, we say I am disconnected. We're already extending our sense of self into these devices and I think that's true and I don't think it's necessarily problematic but I think it's something that we all need to be aware of. The internet is a great source of information but there is always more information there. You could read things on the internet all day long and you would never ever be able to stop. You would never get to the end. There's always someone that knows more about a topic than you and all of these things can contribute towards imposter syndrome. They can make you feel like you don't know enough that you're not doing enough. That can give you a sense that you don't have control. It's not just the fact that maybe our working lives are controlled by our inboxes. Maybe we consider our inboxes our to-do list, it's not by the way. We can feel like we don't have control over how we spend our time. If we're constantly responding to other people we sort of lose that sense of control over what we are doing and where our focus is and that can eventually result in burnout. I'd like to do a little bit of an experiment in FOMO. I'm going to challenge everybody in this room to put their phones and their laptops away for the remaining 15 minutes of this talk and just to experience what that feels like. If you get the urge to reach for your phone, to touch your phone, to tweet something, just recognise that in your mind. Maybe if we've got time for Q&A afterwards you can share your experiences with that because it is hard. To disconnect for only 10 minutes is incredibly hard. Now that I have your attention I'm going to start talking about how the brain works. If the human brain was so simple that we could understand it we would be so simple that we couldn't. I'm going to keep this at incredibly high level. I'm not a psychologist but this basic understanding of how our brains work has helped me change some of my habits. So I'm going to start by talking about the attentional system. There's basically four key components of the attentional system. One is the filter. The second is the central executive mode. We have mind wandering mode and the attentional switch and they're all pretty self-explanatory but I'll run through them one by one. So the attentional filter is the part of the brain that takes all of the input from your senses and decides what information needs to be escalated to your conscious mind. So you're in the room now and your skin is sensing the temperature. But you're not actively thinking about the temperature in this room unless your brain thinks you're really cold. Unless you're really cold. If the temperature changed by maybe five, ten degrees in either direction that information might then be escalated to your conscious mind and you might decide to do something about it. We're not necessarily thinking about the light levels in this room but if the lights went off we'd notice. The central executive mode is the system that allows you to direct your attention. This is the part of the brain that you engage when you're working, when you're doing active problem solving. This is sometimes referred to as top down thinking and it's the opposite of mind wandering which is where you let your thoughts wander aimlessly without purpose. Mind wandering mode, I think a lot of people relate to this when they're driving. So if you're driving and you don't remember a single thing about the journey from when you got to A to B it's probably because you've engaged mind wandering mode. And you've just let your thoughts go off in their own direction. And then finally there's the attentional switch. So this is part of the brain called the insular and it does exactly what you would expect. This is the part of the brain that you engage when you context switch, when you multitask, when you flip from one thing to another. And the thing about the attentional switch is it can get really tired. The more you multitask, the more you drain the resources that you have in this part of your brain which could lead to even less control about where you apply your focus and how you engage that central executive mode.  Maybe you're in the middle of something and your phone lights up and your peripheral vision. That is your attentional filter bringing something into your conscious mind that wouldn't otherwise have been. Maybe you've had a really busy morning where you've had lots of correspondence and you feel absolutely exhausted by lunchtime. That's because you're wearing out your attentional switch. You've switched too often and you've tired out those parts of your brain you need in order to stay on task. Another cruel trick of the mind is the novelty bias. This is basically when the attentional filter is vulnerable to shiny new things and I think we can all relate to this as well. I have a particular weakness for certain apps so I can ignore email pretty effectively but if I get an e-message or a WhatsApp my curiosity can't take it and I have to read that straight away. So I definitely experience this novelty bias. The novelty bias goes some way to explain this behaviour. I'm just going to leave this here for a moment and let you digest that. That's how little self-control we have. If you ask somebody how long their email will sit in their inbox before they read it they'll tell you ten minutes. But a recent study by the University of New York found that if you look at the data on average you'll read that email within six seconds of receiving it. This is during your working day. I think that's a shocking statistic actually because I think when you as a person send email you're not expecting the recipient to be opening it straight away. I don't think anybody can honestly say that their job requires them to read every email within six seconds. So why are we doing this to ourselves? It's that curiosity. It's that novelty bias. We want to know what it says even if it's not important. We also have a completion bias so this is the little dopamine addict in our heads again rewarding us for completing a lot of small tasks instead of taking on the big ones. So this is the part of the mind which will encourage you to do all of your email first thing in the morning even though it's not the most important thing you need to do. It's the part of your brain that will encourage you to reply instantly to an email rather than thinking about it and responding later or even deprioritising it to the next day. The thing about our focus is that it's finite. Your brain makes up 2% of your body mass but burns through 20 to 30% of the calories. You need fuel for your brain and when that fuel runs low we're less able to think clearly. We're less able to do our jobs. So I'm going to talk about some of the things we can do to improve that and to help ourselves make better choices about how we use technology. There's this thing called configuration that you might have heard of. All of these notifications you have complete control of how and when they interrupt you. But very few of us actually update those default settings or switch them off at certain times of the day. There's a lot that you could do with your devices now if you just make a conscious decision to go and update those. I would encourage everybody to do that. Getting things out of your mind so that they don't worry you constantly is a great way to focus. So if you know there's an email that's come in or maybe you just write yourself a note like oh make sure you respond to so and so later. And then it stops distracting you. It stops troubling you. You're less tempted to go back to that thing that you know you really shouldn't be going back to and staying on task. Sorting tasks that are similar also helps with managing them so maybe you do need to respond to email. We all do sometimes but why don't you do that all at once and do it at a time of day where maybe you're not at your best from development or a problem solving point of view. I think you might have got the message already but don't multitask. I know it feels really good. I know that dopamine is really addictive but the more you try to multitask the less you're going to get done. Recognize that the routines that work for other people might not work for you. Experiment. Do different tasks at different times of the day and see what works. I can tell you hand on heart that I can get so much done in the morning. I'm absolutely at my best in the afternoon especially after lunch. I slump. The problem is I'm really tempted to do all my busy work in the morning because it gives me a great sense of achievement to read and respond to all of my email. But that leaves me in the afternoon with big project work to do and I'm just not in the best state of mind to do it. So I actually try not to do my email first thing in the morning. I try to do my creative problem solving first thing in the morning. And finally it's really important to decide not what not to do. There's always more work. There's always more that you can do and sometimes you just have to be honest with yourself that you're not going to get it all done and make a conscious decision about what you're not going to do today. And that frees you up to do the things that are really important. Nap driven development is something I'm a big fan of but did you know that a well timed 15 minute nap can actually increase your IQ by around 10 points? It refreshes your mind. It refuils that oxygenated glucose that you need to focus and to stay on task. If you are like me and you have trouble concentrating in the afternoon and if you're like me and you work from home, take a 15 minute nap. It'll do wonders. And there's some other things that you can do to refuel your mind as well. So I've talked about naps but if you can't take a nap make sure you take a regular break. Get away from your desk. Even better, get outside into nature. It's been shown that even if you look at a picture of a natural landscape, it's de-stressing as a human being. So try to get outside. Try to get into nature as often as you can. Don't skip meals. That oxygenated glucose comes from somewhere you have to eat. Don't skip breakfast. It's actually been shown that chewing gum improves your focus. Something about increasing the blood flow to your brain or that changing behaviour can actually really help. So maybe you can't get out of the office for 20 minutes but you can chew gum. Allow yourself to engage that mind wandering mode throughout certain parts of the day. None of us can stay on task all day every day. We have to allow our brain to operate in both modes. Actually a lot of creativity can be derived from allowing your mind to wander. Finally, having a hobby. This is something that definitely works for me in terms of de-stressing and decompressing at the end of the day. I like to draw. If I'm drawing, I'm not thinking about anything else. I'm not thinking about work or what's in my inbox. I'm probably agonising a little bit too much about whether my drawing is any good. But just having a hobby, playing a sport, cooking a meal, these things engage a different part of your brain and help you to refuel and reset ready to take on the next task. I'm sure a lot of you are aware of the benefits of meditation but I wanted to call that out as well. Practising focused attention makes you more aware of where your attention is and when it drifts. It makes you better at resetting where that attention is. It improves your focus when you're not meditating as well and it actually changes your brain. The areas of the brain linked to attention and sensory processing are thicker in people who meditate than those who don't. So you're literally flexing those muscles in your brain and giving them a workout so that you can use them to greater good when you're not meditating as well. In our work environment we can do things that help each other, that help improve other people's experience as well. So just talking about it, if you find that some people are particularly bad at interrupting you, have that conversation and be like actually you know what this is causing me a problem, maybe we can adapt how we communicate with each other. Introducing interruption free hours can be really powerful especially in development teams. Having certain times of the day where you know people are unavailable and know when they're available makes it a lot easier to set expectations about response times for messages. As I said, I think everybody is different and everyone has a routine that suits them. Flexible working allows everybody to work in their own individual way and I think it's a great thing. Think again about open plan offices for obvious reasons but like I said, the more you are interrupted the more you will self-interrupt. So open plan offices are not great for that. There are a lot of reasons why you can self-interrupt in an open plan office and more interruptions as well. Be really intentional about your communication. Like I said, if you think about the recipient of your emails opening that email within six seconds, be a bit mindful about when or how you send that email.  Be a bit more intentional about how and when you communicate with people. And pairing. This is something we advocate for at Pivotal and actually it increases your resiliency to interruptions. One, because you're accountable to someone else, you're less likely to pick up your phone and start scrolling through social media if you're sat next to somebody else who you're engaged in a task with. It also helps with your short term memory. So maybe you have found that thread of an idea that might result in the solution to a problem and then you get interrupted. Some interruptions are unavoidable but at least you have another person there. You've been working out loud and together you're more likely to go back to that task and find that thread of an idea than if you're on your own. So I want to wrap up now by saying what does any of this have to do with Cloud Foundry? Obviously not a lot but we're all here in Boston at this summit to talk about transformation, to talk about making enormous changes to our working environments, to the technologies we use and the practices that we use. In my opinion, this all becomes a lot easier if we start with ourselves, if we transform how we work and we act, if we're more mindful and more intentional about where we apply our focus, if we cut out the distractions and we cut out the noise and we apply ourselves to the problems that are really the most important that day, then I think we have a much better chance of success. Thank you everybody for having me. I don't know how much time we have but I was just going to sort of open it up and ask if anybody experienced any FOMO just then. Just give me a show of hands. Did anyone get any FOMO? Yeah. Did anyone touch their phone? Yeah. Can't believe it. Shocking. Okay, I'll forgive you. Anyway, thanks everyone for coming. Thank you.


So this is an undergraduate mathematics talk on the ABC conjecture. If anybody has come here wanting to know whether or not Mochizuki has proved the ABC conjecture, the answer is I don't know and I'm not qualified to say. What this talk is going to be about, I'm going to say what the ABC conjecture is. And then I'll give the proof of it for polynomials and then I'll make a few comments on the current state of it. So first of all, what the ABC conjecture is, it says if you have integers a, b and c with a plus b equals c, and here a, b and c should be co-prime, then c is at most the radical of a, b, c with a small fudge factor here. So what is the radical? Well, the radical of an integer n is the product of the distinct prime factors. For instance, the radical of 200 is 10 because 200 is prime factors two and five. And epsilon is some rather small positive number and this holds for all, but finite number of integers a, b, c where this finite number depends on what this number epsilon is. So let me give a few examples to explain this. So we have a plus b plus equals c and we want c is less than or equal to the radical of a, b, c to the one plus epsilon. Well, why do we need this number epsilon here? Well, things like one plus eight equals nine. And here the radical of a, b, c, so this is a, this is b, this is c, the radical of a, b, c is the radical of 72, which is six, and c is definitely bigger than six. So if we didn't put this number epsilon in here, the a, b, c conjecture would just be false. You can actually find quite a lot of examples like this. So the question is how big can epsilon be? And people try to find examples where epsilon is as large as possible. One of the biggest, for example, was found by Ray Satt and says that two plus three to the 10 times 109 equals 23 to the five. And the radical of a, b, c is two times three times 109 times 23, which is 15042. And this number c is 23 to the five, which is 6436343. So it's quite a bit bigger than this radical, but it's less than the square of the radical. So epsilon is less than one even in this example. So why are people interested in the a, b, c conjecture? Well, it implies a whole string of other very deep conjectures in number theory. I'm not gonna list them all. I'll just talk about one of them. So Fermat's last theorem says that x to the n plus y to the n equals z to the n has no non-trivial solutions for n greater than or equal to three, apart from one of these being zero or something like that. Well, if you write a is x to the n and y is b to the n and z is c to the n, then the a, b, c conjecture would say that c is less than or equal to the radical of a, b, c. To the one plus epsilon. Now the radical of a, b, c is going to be at most x, y, z. Here we're taking x, y and z to be co-prime to the one plus epsilon. So c is bigger than x and y. So we find that z to the n would be less than or equal would be less than or equal to z cubed to the one plus epsilon. And obviously if n is bigger than, if n is sufficiently large and epsilon is sufficiently small, then there only going to be a finite number of solutions to this.  Of course, the problem with this is that Fermat's last theorem was proved by Andrew Wiles by a different and very difficult method in the many years ago. But this just gives an example of how the a, b, c conjecture can be used to prove various other theorems. So what I'm going to do now is to show you how to prove the a, b, c conjecture in a slightly different version. This is the a, b, c for polynomials. And this was proved by Stother's and Mason round about 1980 or 81 or something. And what it says is that if a, b, c are polynomials, to be, let's make them have complex coefficients. No, this isn't really necessary. And suppose that a plus b equals c and a, b, c are co-prime. Then the degree of c is less than the degree of the radical of a, b, c. Here we assume that a, b, c are not constants. So what's the radical of a, b, c? Well, it's the product of the distinct linear factors since we're working over the complex numbers. If you're not working over complex numbers, the statement has to be modified very slightly. So the degree of the radical in this case is the number of distinct zeros of a, b, and c. And it has an amazingly short proof, which I think was due to Noah Snyder in about the year 2000, which possibly fits onto one piece of paper and uses nothing more than basic calculus. So if you need to know what the derivative of a polynomial and the derivative of a quotient is and if you know enough, that's enough to follow this proof. So suppose if a plus b equals c, then we know that a over b plus one is equal to c over b. Now we differentiate both sides and we find that a prime b minus b prime a is equal to c prime b minus b prime c. Here I've just differentiated both sides and then taken out a factor of b squared. Let's make f equal to this. And now you'll notice that f is not equal to zero, because if f was zero, then b would divide b prime times a, but b and a are co-prime by definition. So we're saying a, b, and c are pairwise co-prime. And we're working character zero, so b can't divide its derivative. If you want to do that, you can divide its derivative. If you want to do this over fields of characteristic p, you need to be a little bit more careful, but we won't worry about that. And now we also notice that, well, let's write a and a prime for the greatest common divisor of a and its derivative. And we notice that these all divide f and a co-prime so a, a prime divides f because any common divisor of a and a prime divides both that factor and that factor, and so divides f. And similarly, these all divide f. Since they're co-prime, we see the degree of a, a prime plus the degree of b, b prime plus the degree of c, c prime. This lets note the degree of f, which is the degree of a plus the degree of b minus one. And now we notice the degree of a and a prime is just the degree of a minus the number of distinct zeros of a. And this follows because if we write a is equal to t minus alpha to the n one, t minus beta to the n two and so on, then the highest common factor of a and a prime is going to be t minus alpha to the n one minus one, t minus beta to the n two minus one, and so on. So similarly, the degree of the highest common factor of b and b prime is the degree of b minus the number of distinct zeros and same for c. So the degree of a plus the degree of b might plus the degree of c minus the number of distinct zeros of a, b and c is less than the degree of a plus the degree of b minus one. And now we notice that we've got this factor degree of a on the left and the right and this factor degree of b on the left on the right. And so we find the degree of c is less than the number of distinct zeros of a and b and c, which is what we wanted to prove. So we can give an application of that. We can prove Fermat's last theorem for polynomials. So suppose x, y and z are polynomials in some variable t by, I mean, complex polynomials. And suppose they're co-prime and suppose that x to the n plus y to the n equals z to the n with n greater than or equal to three. So this is like Fermat's last theorem except that instead of x, y and z being integers, we take them to be polynomials. And now we let a be this and b be this and c be this. And then we find that the degree of c is less than the number of distinct zeros, which is at most the degree of x, y, z. So n times the degree of z is less than three times the degree of z. Here we're taking, we may assume that the degree of z is bigger as at least equal to the degree of x and y by swapping them around if necessary. So this gives n less than three, which is what we wanted to prove. If n equals two, or indeed solutions, for instance, we can take one minus t squared, squared plus two t squared equals one plus t squared or squared. So we can't do better than this. By the way, if you're working over a field of characteristic p, then you can get formulas like one to the p plus t to the p equals one plus t to the p. So this is working mod p. So you need to be a little bit more careful if you're not working over the complex numbers. So we've got a proof that works over polynomials. What happens if you try and modify that proof to work over the integers? Well, no one's been able to think of a way of doing that. The trouble is this proof very much relies on the fact that you can differentiate polynomials. And the trouble is nobody knows a really good way to differentiate an integer. I mean, the derivative of an integer is just zero, which doesn't really help very much. So I'll finish by just saying a little bit about the current state of the proof for the integers. So Mochizuki in 2012 put out several papers presenting a possible proof of the ABC conjecture. And the reaction of mathematicians, this was a bit odd. The problem was the proof was incredibly difficult. It was several hundred pages long and relied on thousands of pages of previous work by Mochizuki that most mathematicians knew very little about. And it wasn't very easy to read. I mean, I think most mathematicians did roughly what I did that spent a few hours trying to read it and then gave up and hoped somebody else would tell them what was going on. If you've ever seen one of these wildlife moves of penguins, say emperor penguins all want to jump into the sea and go swimming. But none of them want to be first in because there might be a leopard seal there. So all the emperor penguins are trying to push each other into the sea because they don't want to be first in. And mathematicians were behaving a bit like that with Mochizuki's proof. Everybody wanted someone else to be the first to read it and tell them whether it was safe to read the proof or not. Anyway, several people have read Mochizuki's proof and some of them say it's correct and some of them say it isn't. So we're kind of stuck. So in particular, Schultzer and Sticks have put out a pre-print saying something they say is a problem. And I'll try and describe roughly what the problem is. I'm going to have to simplify rather grossly. Let me, I'll explain what they say is a problem by a sort of analogy. Suppose you've got three countries and there's maybe a lake in the middle. So there are three borders and each of these currencies has currency as some current. Each of these countries has some currency. So this country uses dollars and at this border you can exchange the currency and say one dollar is say two euros. And at this border you can say maybe the exchange rate is one euro is three pounds. And at this border, if you say one dollar is six pounds we've got that the right way round two euros, just three pounds then there's no problem, everybody is happy. But if you said one dollar is equal to five pounds then there'd be rather interesting problems. People would be going round and round and round here making lots of money and things wouldn't be consistent. And Mochizuki's proof has a lot of one-dimensional real vector spaces in it and real vector spaces can be thought of as something like a unit of currency and an element of currency is in mathematicians terms an element of a one-dimensional real vector space. And you need to identify all these one-dimensional real vector spaces make them compatible and that means you have to choose it's like choosing an exchange rate between currencies. And furthermore, you need these exchange rates to be compatible that if you identify these two vector spaces and these two vector spaces and these two vector spaces you've got to make sure that all the three identifications are compatible. So are these compatible? So Schultz and Sticks isolated while there weren't three countries there were more like six or seven countries in a big circle with lots of identification. So Schultz and Sticks examined Mochizuki's proof and found all these vector spaces and studied the compatibility condition and said they thought these relations were not compatible and Mochizuki said, yes, they are compatible. So why don't we just check and work out what these exchange rates are and check where they're compatible. The trouble is Mochizuki's proof is so incredibly complicated that it's extremely difficult to figure out what these exchange rates are actually are and whether they're not, I mean, even if they're not compatible the inconsistency might be so small that it doesn't matter. So it's really unclear whether or not that there is this problem with the proof. With most deep mathematical theorems it's possible to give a very fairly short summary of what the key idea and the proof is. For instance, Perlman proved the Poincare conjecture a few years ago and the proof of this is really hard. It takes several hundred pages of hard mathematics to write out, but you can summarize the proof in a few lines. So what Perlman did is he applied something called the Richie flow where you take a three-sphere and you deform it according to certain equations and every now and then when you deform it something goes wrong so you have to cut a bad bit off. It's called doing surgery and then continue deforming the sphere. And you can sort of explain that in a few lines and mathematicians get a rough idea of what the proof is even if they don't understand the details. So you can explain the key idea of the proof even though the details take hundreds of pages. So what's the key idea in Mochizuki's proof and as far as I can figure out, that doesn't, no one seems to know. No one has been able to explain, give some simple summary of what is going on. So why don't you check it on a computer? We now have computer checked proofs of really very long and difficult theorems like the fight Thompson theorem is several hundred pages long and that has now been checked by computer. So why can't you do that with Mochizuki's theorem? Well, the problem is that you can only check theorems on a computer if the proof is really, really, really well understood by humans that the current state of the art for computer checking the computers are not very good at finding the proofs. They need to have the proof explained to them in extraordinary detail. And as far as I know, no one has managed to formalize the proof of Mochizuki's theorem yet. So the computer can understand it maybe in another 10 or 20 years computer proofs will reach that state. So at the moment we're in this very unfortunate state and have been so for eight years where it's simply unclear whether or not this theorem is proved. This is almost unprecedented. I don't know of any other cases when there's been this much controversy about whether a proof is correct or not. Anyway, I think that's enough about the ABC conjecture.


In this video I want to compare the magnetic force acting on a charge with the electric force that would act on a charge. And as we do we will see there is so much information packed in these tiny equations and there are such huge differences between the two forces. So let's begin. So to begin with if we just look at the equations we find the main difference is over here. The magnetic force, the Lorentz force has V cross in it. And boy that itself causes a huge difference in way the two forces behave. So we'll first compare their strengths and then we'll compare their directions. Okay so let's start with the strength of the magnetic force. And for that let's assume that let's take an example. Okay let's say that we have a uniform magnetic field and in that magnetic field let's say we have four protons. One two three four and let's say this first proton is moving this way with some speed. Second proton is moving this way with the same speed. Third one is moving this way with the same speed. And the fourth one is not moving at all. And what I want you to think about just by looking at this equation is what will be the strength of the magnetic force on each one of them? Will it be the same? Will it be different? Why can you pause and think about it? Alright to figure out how strong the force is we have to look at the magnitude of this equation. So if I just look at the magnitude of this force it's going to be magnitude of this thing. Will that be? The magnitude of that is just going to be Q into magnitude of V cross B and the magnitude of V cross B will be magnitude of the velocity times the magnetic magnitude of the magnetic field times sine of the angle between the two. So that matters. So the angle between the velocity and the magnetic field matters. So let's look at each one of them. If I look over here notice the angle between the two is 90 degrees. So over here sine 90 is going to be one and that's maximum which means over here this proton is going to actually experience the maximum magnetic force. What about this one? Well it is the same charge, same speed, same magnetic field but look at the angle. The angle is smaller over here and therefore sine theta is going to be smaller than one and therefore this force will be less than before. So it will be less. What about this one? Well over here they're in the same direction which means theta is zero. If sine theta is zero the magnetic force goes to zero which means this charge is not going to experience any force. No force, zero. What about this charge? Well it's not moving at all which means there is no velocity therefore this also does not experience any force. What we see right in front of our eyes is that the magnetic force highly depends on the direction of the velocity. It's important that it should be moving but more importantly it should be moving making some angle with the magnetic field. So let's write that down. This is, this looks important. So what we find is that the magnetic force is maximum when, when the two are perpendicular, when velocity is perpendicular to the magnetic field. And we find that the force is a minimum which is zero when either the velocity is zero or when they are in the same direction. So when velocity is parallel to the magnetic field or when velocity is zero. Okay now let's look at the electric field. Something we've seen before. The good old familiar electric field. What if I ask the same question? Same four protons moving with same, same four conditions. On moving this way, on moving this way with some speed, same speed. While moving this way with the same speed this not moving at all. What do you think will be the electric force on each one of them? Will it be same or different? Okay can you pause and think about it? For that we look at the magnitude of the electric force and the magnitude of electric force will be magnitude of q which is just q into magnitude of e which is just going to be e. And so what we find is that there is no velocity in this equation and therefore electric field says I don't care about the velocity. I don't care about the direction of the motion. It's going to put the same force. Which means they're all going to experience the same force. So right in front of your eyes the big difference. The first big difference is this depends on the velocity whereas the electric force does not, does not depend on the velocity. Does not. Alright now let's look at their directions. And this time I start with the electric field. So if I were to ask you what is the direction of the electric force here, here and here and here. What direction is it? Well for that we're just going to look at the vectors. It says the direction of the electric force will be in the same direction as the electric field. If the charge is positive it'll be in the opposite direction if the charge is negative. So over here all of them because they're protons will experience the force in this direction. In this direction. And so what we find is that the direction of the electric force will always be parallel. So it's in the same direction or in the opposite direction but always parallel to the electric field and that's nice. If I know the direction of the electric field that's all I need and I will know the direction of the electric force. Positive charge same direction. Negative charge in the opposite direction. Simple. What about the direction of the magnetic force? This is where the cross product comes in. The direction of the magnetic force is not so straightforward. The direction is going to be in the direction of the cross product of the velocity and the magnetic field. How do we do that? Well we've talked about it but let's quickly recap how do you do a cross product. So if I take say this example I'm going to redraw it over here somewhere. So here is my magnetic field and here is the proton moving upwards with some velocity let's say v. Now to figure out the direction of the magnetic force I have to cross from v to b. So for that I'm going to use my right hand and the way I'll position my right hand is going to be somewhat like this so that my palm is facing the velocity vector it's ready to cross towards b. Notice as it crosses the thumb points in the direction of the cross product so the thumb points in the direction of the magnetic force so in this case the magnetic force will be inwards. It will be into the screen this is the direction of the magnetic force and more importantly what this means is that look the direction of the magnetic force is not parallel to the field it's perpendicular to the field it's also perpendicular to the velocity. So over here what we find is that the magnetic force magnetic force will always be perpendicular is perpendicular to velocity and is perpendicular to the magnetic field. So again huge difference here very straightforward in the same direction over here you need to know both the direction of the magnetic field and the direction of the velocity to figure out what the direction of the force is going to be. But most importantly this part the fact that the magnetic force is perpendicular to the velocity has a huge consequence and to understand that again let me take an example let's say I had a very complicated non-uniform magnetic field I don't even know how it is so imagine very complex magnetic field okay and in that I throw a proton it could be any charged particle but let's say I throw a proton and as a result because it is so complex let's say it takes some very weird crooked path through it and comes out like this okay my question to you is do you think the speed of this particle do you think it can change as it moves through the magnetic field very specific question I want you to think about it pause and think about it. All right well my first thoughts would be of course why would it not change if we have like a very complex magnetic field and you know it's taking a very complex path its direction is changing there are forces acting on it so sure I mean clearly surely the speed might change right but guess what the speed of this particle will never change your magnetic field will never be able to change the speed of a particle regardless of how complex the field is and the question is why you may be wondering because the magnetic force is always perpendicular to velocity how does that make any sense well let me give you an example not an example let's think a little bit about it so if I were to ask you let's consider imagine you have some object that's moving this way okay my question is if you want to increase or decrease or change the speed of this particle what should you do well you should push it you should put a force on it what direction should you put a force on it so let's say you want to increase then you should push it in the same direction right you should push it in the same direction is there any other direction you can push it increase the speed yes you can push it this way and you can increase the speed because when you put a force this way there is a component of that force the force has an effect in that direction and that effect is going to accelerate the particle and increase the speed. So as long as your force has a component in the direction of the velocity, it can change the speed, it can increase it or decrease it. But what if your force is perpendicular to the velocity? Now it has no component in the direction of the velocity. As a result, this force cannot change the velocity. All it can do is change the direction, but it cannot change the speed. And since our magnetic force will always be perpendicular to the velocity according to our equation, that means our magnetic force can never change the speed of our particle. Another way to look at it is in terms of work and energy. If you think about the work done by a force, when the force is perpendicular to the displacement vector, that's zero. You've probably seen that in mechanics. So another way to think about it is that our magnetic force does no work and therefore it cannot change the kinetic energy. So a big consequence of this is no change in speed or kinetic energy. And this means regardless of how complicated, this will always hold true. This will always hold true regardless of whether you're dealing with the uniform or non-uniform magnetic fields. And therefore it doesn't matter how complex it is, the speed will never ever change. What a beautiful result, right? Okay, what about over here? Can this electric force, can the electric force change the speed of a particle? Again, I want you to pause and think about it. The answer is yes, because the electric force does not depend on the velocity direction. So say in this, at this moment in time, yes, it may not change the speed, but over here, definitely it can change the speed. Here it'll definitely change the speed. So electric force can change the speed of the particle. It can do work. It can do work. In fact, that's one of the reasons why we think about potential, electric potential, because it can do work and talk about that. But magnetic forces cannot do work. Huge difference. And so I hope you can appreciate how much information is packed in these little equations. And so you don't have to remember any of these. If you can just deeply understand the equations, everything, all these differences, all the nuances, follow immediately.


Prevention of human trafficking is one of the co-pillars of the IOM-Ukraine counter-trafficking program, which has assisted more than 15,000 victims of trafficking since 2000. Our approach to human trafficking prevention is three-layered. The first layer is aimed at general awareness raising. Most materials, public events, information campaigns, the latest of which led in cooperation with IOM counter-trafficking ambassador Jamala have covered more than 25 million of people of Ukraine, all are parts of general awareness raising. The second layer is targeted at vulnerable populations most prone to getting into risky situations. We cooperate with government and civil society extensively. Since 2015, we have supported more than 50 small awareness raising grant programs in 20 regions of Ukraine. The game Lisa and Her Friends Travels the World is part of the third layer of prevention, which is early prevention of human trafficking. What is our goal? It's teaching children safe behavior skills and critical thinking, which might prevent them from getting into risky situations, which might lead to human trafficking and exploitation in the future. We really hope that it will help scale up and promote our efforts in early prevention because it's really better to be safe than sorry.