All right, let's start with lesson eight. So lesson eight is about 2D physical processes. So all the process we discussed in lesson six on like advection, dispersion, diffusion, all these are the same process itself are the same. But here in this section, or in this lesson, we're trying to introduce an additional layer of complexity. In 2D, one is we are adding another dimension. So we not just have one D case, we also have another dimension x, y. So there's a bit of adding a little bit of complexity in that sense. But also, we are introducing the heterogeneity concept. That is the heterogeneity, meaning the spatial distribution of the subsurface properties, or prosimidic properties, not even. Meaning somewhere you might have, for example, very high parasitic permeability, and somewhere else you have low parasitic permeability. Or somewhere you have clay lenses, which can absorb a lot of material. But then somewhere else you have more like sandstone, which is largely non-reactive. Or somewhere you might have carbon that can dissolve out relatively fast. So there are a lot of different type of heterogeneities. And here, since we are talking about physical processes, we are mostly relating everything to the differences in physical properties. So you probably, at this point, you have already reading through the online text about the concept of homogeneity and heterogeneity, and also the statistical measurements of heterogeneity, like mean, variance, correlation lens. So mean is actually defining the average permeability of a system. And the variance is a quantity that measures how big is the variation. If you have small variance, you mean, meaning you have a relatively small range surrounding the mean. If you have a larger one, meaning you have larger variance. And especially for permeability, for example, values of permeability usually vary by orders of magnitude in natural systems. So a lot of when we talk about permeability or connectivity, we're talking about the variance, the mean of log permeability, the variance of log permeability. And also, correlation lens, defining at what length scale. The different properties are related. So you can go back and think about these concepts and these are important concepts. We can have a whole lesson of geostatistics. Actually, it's offering this department. So what we talk about here is really just scratch the surface, give you some concept of that. And if you're interested, and if it's something that you are going to use a lot later on, you're encouraged to dig into the textbook details software to have more in-depth learning in terms of these geostatistic measures. So here, what I'm going to do today is really trying to look at example in lesson eight. Which is adopted from one of the papers my group published a couple of years back. So we have one of my graduate students. We set up these columns, a set of a suite of columns, having the same total mass or almost the same. We try to keep it as much as possible the same. So the total mass of two-minute wine is a magnetite, which is a reacting mineral. Another is quartz, which is considered as non-rective. It's still reactive, but it's irractive. It's dissolving so slowly it doesn't. At a time scale, we consider it doesn't really matter. So in that experiment, we had columns, which is 3D. But here, we'll kind of adopt it as a 2D examples. So you can still go back and look at that paper and details about converting between 2D and 3D. But to keep it simple here, we are really just looking at two columns, two extreme case, one is a mixed case, a uniform distribution, everything. The other is we call it one-zone case, have the magnetite in the middle, as you can see here in figure four, that everything is clustered in that magnetite zone. And we have measurement in terms of the physical-operative column. We know the volume fraction. We know mass. And then we measure what's coming out of these columns. So this will be, you can consider this lesson is like one step of the whole process. Later on, we will have another lesson focusing on the reaction, the distribution processes in these two columns. This session, we are only going to focus on the physical processes of these two columns. And I'm giving you this table, which are the physical property columns. You have a magnetized MG zone, quartz zone. You have this, like the just specificity, which is actually we obtained by reproducing tracer data, tracer test data. We have alpha L, alpha T. We have effective probability, average velocity. For the one-zone case, we also have the velocity of the magnetized zone and the velocity of the quartz zone. So this will be QTZ. OK, so let's go through. So you can read this text. And what I'm asking you to do is essentially, first of all, in order to set it up for both columns, for the mixed one, it's actually, if you set it at 1D, it should give you the same calculation. But we want to compare both in 2D. So we set up it actually in 2D. Now, so before you do any input, you will need, just like in the 1D situation, you will need to do some calculation in terms of the property of different zones. And in this case, because you have 2D, you have different zones, it actually ended up being a little bit more complicated calculation. So in question 1, 2, and 3, 4, they are mostly asking you to calculate for some of the key parameters, effective permitting. And so what is the permitting of the individual zones? The volume fraction of the zones in the two columns. And then you will also need to give you the pressure gradient for the column, resident time of the column, all that. And then at the end, so 1 to 4 is asking you to calculate all that. And then 5 and 6, before you set the concentration. And then 5 and 6 is setting the concentration calculation. And then look at the flow field. And then look at the concentration, the bromide breakthrough. Again, it's non-reactive processes. All right, so I'm assuming at the time you are listening to this video, you have already went through the online solution, 1 to 4. At least you have tried your first, by yourself first, and then do some calculation. And then you compared what you have with the solution to question 1 to 4. If not, I suggest you go back and look at it again. So just you have a bit of background. All right, so I'm going to focus on here, setting the two columns. One is a homogeneous column. The other is a one-zone column. So let's look at a mixed column first, which is a uniform column. And what I'm having here is again, OK, sorry about that. I'm going to open in a notepad. OK, so I'm giving you essentially a blank file except some of the runtime information is already there. Now what you have here is, forgive me, all these grid blocks. Now you have 2D. So again, just like we did in 1D, you need to tell the code, what is your domain? What is your system? So in the, I think, let me see, I didn't really tell you how many grid blocks I want you to set. Oh, OK, so OK, I did see that. 2D system has a size of 25 millimeter by 100 millimeter. OK, that's fine. But I think I didn't tell you the size, the resolution. OK, maybe I will put it here. So it's a little bit, sorry, I'm going to mess it up. But anyway, I need to clean this up, looks like. But here I'm going to add some just rounds of the simulation at the grid block resolution of 1 millimeter by 1 millimeter. So this essentially gives you the resolution. Now what you are going to do here is, I guess this is a question, this kind of mess up. But this is a question 5 and 6. You will be looking, you will be setting up as a system. So first thing you need to set up is your domain. We have 25 millimeter by 100 millimeter. So if it's a resolution of 1 millimeter by 1 millimeter, the number of grid blocks will be 25 in one direction, then 100 in the other direction. So the first thing you kind of need to tell the code, the system, is how many grid blocks you have. So for example, I will, again, put in the distance units. Let's do millimeter, because that's the resolution, millimeters. And then you would have x zones. You have 25, and then you have the y zone. So y zone is the longer one. You have 100 grid blocks, and you have one. So these are your system, 25 by 100. So the system know you have, this is your domain size. And since this y zone is in the long one, so it's in the flow direction. So keep in mind that's a flow direction. So your inlet would be in the y zone of 0, and then the outlet go cell would be in the y zone 101. So keep that in mind. So that's your domain. And then we kind of need to tell the system, what is your system and how is the property of your system. So let's first do porosity. In that column, if you look back into this, OK, so in the mix, so both of them have average porosity 0.44. So you will be putting in porosity. And maybe here we'll be, since it's a non-reactive one, let's do this time for fixed porosity, which is 0.44. It's a homogeneous case, so everywhere is the same. And so then we need to set up the flow. The flow is related to the gradient, pressure gradient, and then so we will need to do a few things just like what you did before for the 1D case, except now you are doing 2D. So again, we're putting time units. Let's say this is 4. And then you have distance units, which is meters. And then, again, we are going to specify the pressure gradient permeability values, so we are going to do calculate flow. We said that is true. I'll just give you enough space. And then you would have permeability x, which is 8.26e minus 13. This is what you have actually given to you if we go back and look. The effective permeability for mixing is 8.26 times 10 to the minus 13. And same for permeability y. And here you would, so the xy here is specifying the different direction, permeability in different directions. But I also want to set a no flow boundary at the direction that is in the direct parallel to the flow. So here I need to specify, for example, let me just put it there, these two lines are for the default permeability. But I also need to set the permeability for when we have the column. And we specify in the y direction. Actually, if you think about the x in the figure, in that figure 4, 5, we have the image of the two columns. x is what you have in the transverse flow. y is the direction that is perpendicular to the parallel to the flow, I'm sorry. So then in that case, you actually will need to specify all the xy, like the values to be. We want that the flow doesn't go out of the column. So you kind of need to have no flow boundary. Or you have zero permeability in the two grid blocks, in the two lines in the grid blocks. 1 to 1, which is x, and 1 to 100. That's specifying in the left-hand side of that line. So it's x is 1. And then your y will be from grid block 1 to 100. z is just one grid block, so z 1 to 1. And the same for the other side, which is 25 to 25. And then you have 1 to 100 again. And then that's essentially, let me just write it there. This is no flow boundary. In the direction perpendicular to the flow. So essentially, you're saying, OK, permeability is infinitely small, so you are not going to have flow flowing out in the x direction at the two boundaries. All right, so that's for the two boundary. And then we need to specify pressure for that. So if we inlet side to the outlet side. And we did, if you look at the solution to question 1 to 4, there's one question about what is the pressure? What should be the pressure gradient? Based on the permeability and the flow velocity, which is every flow velocity is 3.6 meter per day. What do you need? So that is specified. So you'll be putting pressure. Using the number calculated is 5,060. And that will be an outlet. So you have zone 1 to 25. That's actually, I'm sorry, that's inlet. So that's specifying the pressure in the go cell just before you have set exactly the first grid block. So it's 1 to 25, y is 0,0, and z is 1,1. And then we should fix that. And then the other end in outlet, you should have 0. And again, zone would be 1 to 25. But now you are doing 101 to 101, meaning it's in the go cell just outside of the last grid block. And this again, 1 to 1, and then fix. So that's for the flow grid block. That's keyword block. You are specifying essentially the units. And then you will say calculating flow. And you will give it permittive values. You specify here is no flow boundary in the direction at parallel to the flow. And then you have pressure gradient in the directions, that is, the inlet and outlet. So that should give you the flow velocity in 3.6 meter per day. All right, so that's the flow. And then transport. We need to specify the transport grid block. So for transport grid block, we talked about before what we need would be something like things related to diffusion, dispersion, these parameters. But again, let's start by doing the units again, time units. You would have seconds. And then distance units would be maybe we do centimeters this time. Because I believe in this dispersive value, it's given in centimeters. OK, so yeah, that's in centimeters. So you specify units. And then you will be specifying diffusion, fixed diffusion. And in the paper, we talk about using the fixed diffusion of 6.342 minus 6. So we are going to use the same centimeter square per second in the units for diffusion for all the different species. And actually here in trisetage, you only have one species. And then we are, again, going to do the cementation factor or cementation exponent. And we often specify that as 1.0. And then you need dispersive value. So for dispersivity, since here you have two dimensions, you actually would need two different dispersive values, alpha l and alpha t. So in the alpha l, you need to have l is in the direction that is parallel to the flow. And in the direction that is perpendicular to the flow, you have smaller values. Let's look it up here. So you have alpha l and alpha t. Alpha l is larger because it's in the direction parallel to the flow. This is in the direction transverse to the flow. OK, so in here, when in the example, our x is the direction that is perpendicular to the flow. So it should be 0.005. And in the direction that is parallel to the flow, it should be 0.05 in centimeter. All right, so that's the transport properties. Well, transport, we have discretization. Mino, we don't need to specify. We already specify velocity. We could just specify the amino, but as long as you specify the amino, you will need to have all the chemicals and species that go with it. So for this one, because everything in the homogeneous, we don't have to specify. As long as you specify porosity, and we are focusing on physical processes, so we don't really need to specify the individual minerals. Now, your promis species will be bromide, tracer. Second species, we don't have to specify. And now you will need to specify inlet condition. So your inlet condition would be what you are injecting. So again, let's specify units would be, we actually can use molar, I forgot in the previous lessons, which is the same as more per liter. If you can't do more dash L, but you if you write molar, then the code takes it. And then your temperature, again, let's assume it's 25. And then you would have the bromide concentration, which in the question is specify a tracer test of 1.21, 0E minus 4 molar. So that's the inlet condition. And if we don't specify, so in the inlet, we don't specify there's no solid phase. And supposedly, we don't need to specify. But then we also will need to specify initial conditions, which would be, again, let's use it to be consistent. We use units of molar, temperature, 25. As the initial income there is almost no bromide at all. So this will be your inlet and the initial. So these are your two conditions. We didn't really specify any solid phase, because this is a physical process. We don't need to consider the chemical components. But then we already specify the velocity value, which is 0.44. So the code would just assume the solid phase would be 1 minus velocity, which is 0.56. And then it would assume it's non-reactive. So it does have by default. So then here we can specify these inlet initial conditions, which is initial. And here you need to specify all the grid block, because all grid block has the same initial condition. So it's better from inlet. So inlet it will be specified in the boundary condition. You'd initialize this every way. So you relatively actually just have clean water. But you also need to specify, where is the boundary condition? Let's put all the together. The condition, let's put the initial and boundary condition to kind of group information. So boundary condition, now, because you have two dimensions, you actually would need two boundary conditions. So before, when we had 1D, we would use x begin, x end, y begin, y end. So here we would say x, which is inlet. And then you would have flux. And x end, you have initial. So everything is flux in the boundary condition we specify. And it really matters is a y, because x in the x direction is no flow boundary. So you don't have flow coming anyway. But you do need to specify both. So essentially, because the flow is in the y direction from y begin, which is in the inlet. And then y end is in the outlet. But we use flux, so it would be your special initial. And they're flowing out of the system. Now, so that's a boundary condition. Then we also need to specify, yeah, we do need to specify the output. To forget them, you need to decide how many time series you want in which grid block. And how frequently you want the spatial profile. How long you want summation to run. So this will be in the, this will specify how long you will run the summation essentially when we put in the spatial profiles. Spatial profile. Let's do, for example, maybe 0.2 days in total. And we sample a little bit more frequent earlier than later about that point. Because we calculate the present time is actually much smaller than that. Present time is probably, I believe, in the order of minutes or something. OK, so by specifying this, the code will be run until 0.2 days. We don't want it to run too long. Because now we have, instead of 100 grid blocks, we have 2,500 grid blocks. So if we specify too long, it might run for too long. And then let's look at how many grid blocks do we need. Time series. As if you want, for example, the middle of the column in the outlet, you can specify. So you have 25 grid blocks in the x direction. The middle one will be 13. So maybe we do break through curves, 13, that out. And then you will specify where it is you want to sample. So that's in x direction, 13, in y direction is at the end of the column, which 100, x, z direction. That's time series. And then you have time series. What do you want to put in the time series of the break through curve? That you need to specify, which is bromide. And also you can specify time series interval. How often do you want it to come out? And let's say you want it 4, you want it 10. Sometimes you want to adjust a little bit, just so you have enough resolution in time of time. Because the code actually calculate everything adoptively. So its time steps are not even. When things change fast, it takes very small time steps. When they reach a steady state, it takes big strides. So later on it couldn't be running really fast. But early on, the time step might be in the units of 10 to the minus, for example, 10 days or something like that. So it's very uneven. And sometimes you might need to run a couple of times if you find your resolution not high enough. But anyway, this is something you can track. OK, so let's track. Just track goes through everything to make sure there's no errors pumping out. And we filled all the grid blocks. We don't need second species. We don't need grasses. We have initial conditions specified. And that's the initial condition. It's the same name. We have inlet. We have undercondition. OK, so let's try to run it to see if it works. Mixed to d.in. OK, it looks like it runs. Was it running? Let's look at output file. Looks like it's finished too fast to me. Maximum time step distance. OK, looks like it didn't do the time stepping. Let's go back and see if there's potential. Something wrong with it. Let's see if there's any information here. So it reads in until pressure of this. So it looks like it reads until pressure. I don't think it's because of the empty line. But let me just fix it. OK, everything is undercondition. Condition inlet, condition outlet. Let me just make sure in the input file. Clean up seems a little bit. Time units, let's see. OK, everything looks good to me. Let's just try it again. Interesting. So it's example 8.1 mixed to d. So it looks like it stops somewhere in the middle without finish running. Cipatiation, ignition, boundary condition, successfully completed. Let me just check. Let's just check everything. Lesson 8, title, runtime. We are specifying. Let me make it database. And we do have the database. OK, yeah, we do have a database here. Output, days, spatial profile, time series, breakthrough.out, 1,301. And then your time series, print bromide, interval for transport, seconds, centimeters, fixed fusion, cementation, exponent, 1.0, dispersivity, positive, fixed, which is 0.44 discretization. Distance units, millimeters, x zone, 25, 1. If I search for x zone, just want to make sure. Everything I have is correct. So this is correct, y zone, 101. Number of cells, spacing, all right, flow, seconds, meters, Keke flow 2, 8.26, 8.26, default, Pumbetti x, just specifying the no flow boundaries in the two no flow boundaries. Pressure, maybe I need a pressure default just to, because this is, OK, let me just try this. Pressure is 0.1 default everywhere. It shouldn't really matter, because here we're specifying the boundaries. So it do need some values in the middle of, like, in other grid projects, initial value. I do think that's, let's try this. Let's try if that's a problem, not this one, sorry. Example 8.1, mixed 2D.in. OK, so again, it stopped here. Let me run the other one that is not blank that I actually did it before. That's the other one that is not blank one. And I deleted everything, and we just filled in here. So just to make sure, to make sure that one is running. OK, this one is running. So if we compare the two, we probably would tell the difference. OK, so this is running. For the homogeneous case, it's coming out. The first time, I'm curious what's the difference. Let me just open this one. It's essentially the same, except I call this essentially a different name. But that should not make a difference. Let's finish up now. It's almost done. Point one. So we have another point one to go. By any case, you see that. Then let me open both. Let's call this blank just to be different. OK, so I have these two side by side. This is blank. Lesson, more schemers for us. OK, I did a screen output. 110, one face, I shouldn't make a difference. Output days. I changed a little bit of parameter, but these shouldn't really matter. Begin. OK, so I changed boundary conditions. Inlet, flux, I don't think these make a difference. Transport, that's it. See that here? I missed the keyword zone. Let me just, so maybe the code doesn't recognize it. That's why press this one is done. OK, now I've fixed this problem. Let's just try it again. We think blank, example, 8 point mixed to deny it's running. OK, so that's a lesson. You are not supposed, OK, so the problem was when I specify that permeability is a no flow boundary. Every time when you specify the permitted values for different grid blocks, you should have a keyword zone before that. And then without that, the code couldn't recognize it. So the error message even just doesn't come up to tell you that. So we compared what we did was essentially, OK, when I compare this one with the ones that I did not delete everything and it was running, then I missed this. So hopefully, this mistake will help you remember it's very important to have the zone there. But in any case, you are done with a mixed case. And then what I'm trying to point you to is that, OK, for example, now we can already look at velocity. We can look at velocity, which should give you x, y, and x velocity as these are. So the main flow direction is y, right? So it really should be the flow direction. It should be flow is everywhere in y. It shouldn't be the main flow. But then these ones, x, you would have some small numbers randomly fluctuating. And that's fine. Don't panic when you see that. It should have, because the 2D should have x, y, both velocity and x, y. But the x velocity should cancel out, because we have no flow boundary. That's the velocity. And then you are supposed to, OK, the breakthrough 13.1 should be coming out. For the mixed column, it doesn't really matter. It should be in order that everything is even. So one grid block actually can represent all the different grid blocks in the outlet, because you have a homogeneous case. In the heterogeneous case, you actually would need to kind of flux-averaged breakthrough curve, which we will be talking a little bit later. Now, I'm going to stop here, because this video is already one hour, and I don't want it to be too long. So let me just close this one and pack everything up for this unit. And then I will do another short one for the one-zone case.


Alrighty, happy seven days until Canada's Wonderland's grand reopening after being shut down for nearly a year and a half. It feels like it's been forever and I cannot wait to step my feet into that park and just experience everything that I miss. Over the next seven days, during our countdown, I'm going to make some pretty cool videos in my opinion that are pretty much based on my opinion about Canada's Wonderland and things that they could have done, things that they're missing, things that will never happen, etc. So in today's video, I'm going to discuss Canada's Wonderland's biggest mistake ever and I think this is a pretty agreeable opinion, but Wonder Mountain's Guardian, in my opinion, is Canada's Wonderland's biggest mistake. It was an attraction that had the right idea and the right location, but it just missed the mark. And I just want to explain that this is no shade at Triotech or anything. We know that Wonderland had asked for some things that aren't Triotech's fault, for example, the trains. I'm not sure who's at fault for the guns, but the guns are a big part in why Wonder Mountain's Guardian simply just hasn't worked. It is truly one of the most embarrassing dark ride launches I've seen. It's just, and if you remember, the biggest evidence that this was a flop is Cedar Fair back in the day said that they wanted one of these dark rides at every single one of their parks. Well, that stopped at knots. And we have already seen Knott's Berry Farm do a transition of the ride to new theming and a whole new storyline. So I'm really hoping fingers crossed don't think it's going to happen, but super fingers crossed that we see something happen with Wonder Mountain's Guardian because it's just not hitting the mark in terms of guess. It has so many flaws from the backpack policy and guests having to use lockers, creating like a bottleneck to the very understated theming that is in this ride. It is simply just a dark ride with screens. There's no theming whatsoever. In fact, even the queue line, they attempted to do theming, but it just really missed the completion. It's like half generic ride and half dark shooter ride and like 10% theming. It's just truly disappointing. And I know I sound really negative right now, but I just can't get over how awful of an attraction it is. And it's really embarrassing when you look at their competitors, Six Flags and the dark rides that Six Flags built compared to the dark ride that Cedar Fair launched. It seems like Cedar Fair really rushed this decision with little understanding and little study into this attraction. I know it's newer and Trial Tech's a very new and Canadian company based out of Montreal, but it just truly didn't work for me. I want to hear from you guys down below at this point. What do you guys think of Wonder Mountain's Guardian? Do you think I'm overhating on the ride? Do you think that this ride is a lot better than what I'm making it out to seem? Are there any haters? Are there any lovers? Comment down below. I don't think there's any right or wrong answers. Again, this video is simply my opinion, but I'm very curious to hear what a lot of you have to say about it. Now that brings me to the question. Well, I'm trying to think, is there anything else to hate on Wonder Mountain's Guardian? I do hate that it took up like two levels of the mountain and it could have been utilized better. And I'm going to go over how they could have utilized it better, so I think you guys are going to like that. So for those of you that don't know, there's a mock powered suspended coaster. Very similar to Thunder Run, but almost inverted and suspended if you could picture that. I'm going to show you some examples here on the screen now. But I think that Wonder Mountain's Guardian would have been better as a family powered coaster. I know that we already have one Thunder Run, but a suspended one that tells the story. You have the carts that change direction, very similar to Wonder Mountain's Guardian, even though it changes direction once and it stays in that position. It would have been cool to have it move around a little more and tell a story with some more theming. And I know it would have cost a lot more, but you could have incorporated that as a bigger addition and spread out some smaller additions in between. I just wish there was a little more planning. It would have been really cool to utilize the mountain a little more, maybe use the two levels for this powered suspended coaster and then have it exit the mountain into international show place and use that plot of land for its outdoor kind of like coaster section like you see at Europa Park. I think that would have been really cool to see. And I just really, again, I can't emphasize that they really missed the mark. There were so many options out there. Even Sally Dark rides would have been a really cool option for Cedar Fair to use for their dark rides. We already have some Sally rides. Sally Dark rides at Canada's Wonderland.  The Dark Knight, I believe that's what it's called. Again, drag me in the comments if I'm wrong, but it would have been really cool to see some sort of other option instead of really going outside of the box with this. I know that Canada's Wonderland likes to test out a few things, but I think this is where it starts to bite them in the butt when they do start testing unique things like this. That being said, I do really hope that we, if it isn't going to change and, you know, they're not going to eventually remove it, I really do hope they spend the money to fix this ride, get better projectors, get working guns and fix the problems that the ride currently has. And I would really like to see theming. It's really disappointing to see what Knott's Berry Farm got with theming around the screens and then to see what we were given with just screens and concrete in our mountains. So it was a big let down and I really do hope that, you know, they spend a couple of extra million dollars to fix up this ride and make it work. But again, I really do feel like a mock powered suspended coaster would have done wonders for the park. It would have been more family oriented and it could have told, you know, the whole story and history of Canada's Wonderland with the mountain and the dragon. It could have told a really cool adventure and I would have loved to see what they could have done with that. But I want to hear from you guys. What do you guys think could have been in place of Wonder Mountains Guardian? Do you agree with the powered suspended coaster by Mock or do you think something else would have served better in its place? I know a lot of enthusiasts like to see just thrill coasters but if you're looking at a theme park like Canada's Wonderland that's more family oriented, what do you think would have served better in this plot of land than this current triotech ride? Anyways, I don't know what else I could possibly say to drag this ride any further and I don't know what else I could really say. I honestly really want to see a mock powered suspended coaster at Canada's Wonderland. I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon and I definitely don't think they're going to remove this coaster and retrofit it with a mock now. It would cost way too much money and I don't think the mountain can house those suspended supports but maybe I'm wrong. Maybe there's a reason we have this and not, you know, another dark ride. We don't know everything that a theme park goes through in terms of planning and all that but I really do think that Wonder Mountains Guardian was a flop. And I know that's really negative to say and I know that's, you know, pretty harsh but I just don't see the benefit of this ride. It definitely doesn't draw attendance. It's definitely not popular and I know a lot of guests come off this ride super disappointed that their gun didn't work and it's super uncalibrated too. Also they did cheap out on projectors. These are not really good projectors. There are definitely better in the industry and I would have liked to see something. But nonetheless, hopefully our next dark ride at Canada's Wonderland is a lot better because we definitely need more dark rides. We need rides that are capable of winter now because of Winterfest and I can't wait to see what Canada's Wonderland has up their sleeves for more indoor dark ride attractions. Anyways, hopefully you guys enjoyed this video. Happy seven days to Canada's Wonderland's opening and I hope you're as excited as I am. And thank you so much for supporting the channel and watching this video. Don't forget to leave a like comment your opinions. And yeah, if you want to join us over and discord the links down below, you definitely should. It's like a forum and it's very active voice chat. Anyways, thanks so much for watching guys. Hopefully you had an amazing weekend and happy new week. Bye.


Hi everyone, Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com. People are loving this 2019, 2020 Panini Chronicles basketball. Another one is filled. We've got two more coming up later tonight. This is two box random team break number three.  So those retail hanger packs right there and an early bird opportunity as well. So the first 20 right here in break number three has a chance at that extra spot right down there. So new dice roll, let's roll it, let's randomize it. Name on top after six, we'll get an extra spot. One, two, three, four, five, and six in final time. After six, Eric. After six, Eric G with the extra spot. Oh, you're right down there. Nice, the latest of the early birds. Still an early bird though. There you go, man. All right, so now we'll use this tab right here to assign you to randomize names and teams and assign you a random team. You dice seven times this time, five and a two. One, two, three, and seven in final time. After seven, we've got Shane down to Chad. And seven times, one. After seven times, we've got my Lakers up there and the Pelicans down there. Kevin K saying, dame, what happened? What is happening? I've got the fifth overtime on for hockey. Now I wish I had two TVs in here. All right, Shane, you got my Lakers. Eric with your early bird spot, the Sixers. Oliver with the Kings. Your Kings, Ollie. Rodney with the T-Wolves. Let's make that a little bit bigger. Bill with the Jazz. Kevin with the Magic. Danny with the Celtics. Peter with the Raptors. Kevin with the Bucks. You'll get all Yannises. Danny with the Hornets. Matthew with the Nuggets. Eric with the Mavs. You'll get second year Luca Donchiches. Eric, you'll also have the Suns. Matt Garner with the Warriors. Chipper with the Knicks. Pistons for Rodney. Peter with the Cavs. Danny with the Hawks. Thomas with the Clippers. Chad with the Bulls. Francis with the Rockets. Philip Klein, last bottom mojo. Okay, C, Francis with the Pacers. Dan with the Nets. Steven H with the Trailblazers and the Heat. Ryan with the Spurs. Bill with the Wizards. Danny, wow, the two best teams right here on the bottom. Danny with the Grizz and Chad with the Pelicans. There you go. Let's sort this by column B, by team. And we're gonna pause the video and allow for a little bit of trading time. And when we come back, we're gonna see if there's any trades. And then the break, stick around. All right, welcome back folks. There were no deals, but that's okay. A lot of trade chatter, but no deals were done. There it is. Fat Pack, random team number three here on Tuesday, the 11th, thanks everyone for getting in. Really appreciate it. Phil with that last bottom mojo, Thunder. Yeah, I heard Damian Lillar with 61 points tonight. Is that game over? I'm busy watching the fifth overtime in this Columbus Bluejack, it's Tampa Bay Lightning game. It's also pretty, too much excitement today. We got more of this in the store, folks. I think we've got number five has 17 left. So we're almost halfway there. After this will be Mosaic, Salo Pack, then we'll have Gold Standard Football, then we'll have another Chronicles, two box break right here, number four. And that should bring us to, I don't know, that should gobble up the next couple hours or so. So thanks for hanging with us, folks. So the Xur, the Trail Blazers, hold it, I do not want to see the Trail Blazers in the playoffs, that terrifies me. As a Lakers fan, do not want to see any of that at all. I want no part of it. No part of it. The Lakers, they actively practice not defending the perimeter. They just hate, I mean, if they get the eighth seed, yeah. But is it locked now? It's not locked. Right, because if, yeah, if the eighth, so Blazers are half game up for the eighth seed, says Eric, so yeah. So if that ninth seed is within like three or four games of the eighth seed, there's that two game, that weird two game play in to determine that. So there's all sorts of crazy things happening here. All right, there's Kendrick Nunn. We'll sleeve and top load all of those along with that LeBron James. Just in the interest of time, Yanis ships too. Just in the interest of time, we're just gonna, just gonna take care of John Morant and Zion's here, of which I think they'll be a decent amount. These bronzes are exclusive to this set as well. More Zion, either Hiro, Hachi Mora. I mean, there are a lot of rookies that are playing some good ball. There's a taco fall. These are prism updates, by the way, ladies and gentlemen. I don't think I realized that, so I apologize for previous breaks. There you go, that goes to the Celtics. That'll be for Danny. These two Zions will go to, and the rest of them will go to Chad Meyer. We got randomized the Pelicans in this one. Jarell says, one day LeBron's gonna pull up in this chat and hear that guard the three point line comment. Yeah, and then guess what, Jarell? Just approve me wrong, Joe Jaspy wrong from jaspyscasebreaks.com. LeBron James will be like, boom, in your face, Joe Jaspy. I can guard the perimeter when I'm in playoff mode, and then I'll be like, go, I apologize, LeBron. I'm sorry, Mr. James, I apologize. I'll never doubt you again. Why did I think that you were gonna be too old to guard the perimeter consistently in a seven game series against C. Jim McCollum and Damian Lillard, but right, zero dark 23. Just be playoff LeBron, scary. John Morant, of course, will go to Danny, who has the gris, that and the rest. There's one right up there too. Now there's Zions, there'll be a lot of these Zions. All of these different parallels will have different values, of course. Some more than others, some less than others, but all good, all nice. All those Hachimuras, of course, will go to Bill, John Morant for Danny, Chad with the Pelicans, Chad, oh, you also have the bulls. You're gonna get all those Kobe whites as well. I mean, even Cameron Johnson could jump in values someday. Actually playing some decent ball. LeBron's great, Giannis, Kobe white. LeBron will go to Shane and my Lakers. Giannis will go to Kevin K and the Bucks. Calvin Johnson, 24, 25 points and 11, I think. So he's looking good. Yeah, I think in this retail stuff, Shurell, it's really just, you're just really looking for John Morant's and other rookie cards, really. And Prism Update, I think, is a unique thing in this set as well. Wow, 85 saves tonight. Most saves in a playoff game for the Blue Jackets. Gold Keeper, Gold Tender, oh, we got an autograph. The Rare Auto, Airborne, Andrew Wiggins, Golden State Warriors. Nice, that'll be for Matt Garner. What's the second record, Ryan? I just saw the record on TV right here. Plus 22 on the plus, minus five. Keldon Johnson went five from five from three. Dust off your Keldon Johnson cards, ladies and gentlemen. More John Morant. There it is, Tampa Bay Lightning, some guy named Point, so much for that sixth overtime. Man, they really jinxed that Blue Jackets player. That goalie, they were just like, most saves. There's like literally like a minute ago, no, they got the other guy in goal, he's hurt. Yeah, and the announcers were just like, has them both saves in playoff history and then like 30 seconds later, goal. Brayden Point, is that hashtag good for the hobby, Rich? Dust off your Brayden Point rookie cards? Another Zion. There's Keldon again right here. So many cards to keep track of nowadays. You gotta keep up 808 if you don't want any spoilers here. Sometimes our feed might be ahead, actually. You might need a pause our feed to catch up. Ryan's is there are three records in this game. Ryan A is saying, most saves in a single game, most shots on goal in a single game, and most shots combined in a single game, and fourth longest game ever. Wow, all sorts of records happening here. Yeah, all that with no fans, it's kind of sad. Safety first, I guess.  Just in the interest of time, just setting them aside right now. All right, so that's exciting. We go back to inside the NBA on TNT. Do we have more hoop tonight? Oh, we got Pelicans Sacramento, Zion? Is he playing? Zion's not playing anymore? Oh, because they're already out. No Zion, Luke Walton in a nice striped polo? I kinda want that shirt, that looks nice. Where's Buck's Wizards? I don't know, there's too much sports, Nick. He's got three rebounds already, is he on pace for 28 rebounds? Where's this game? Where's this game? NBA TV? Why do we not have an NBA package here? We got white, no, I don't wanna see an Allen, I love Allen Iverson, but I don't even wanna see an Allen Iverson special. They're blacked out on this game. I'll bet TNT wants the other game too. Chipper says Brandon's baby fat, hashtag bad for the hobby. That's true, yes. But I guess the silver lining is that Zion's what, 20 years old or something like that? So he's got some time to shed that baby fat. Still young. Look at what Yannis looked like. Yannis looked like a beanpole. When he first came in. Then he added some of that muscle, got some of that man strength. Now look at him. Here we go, ladies and gents. Good luck, second box. Got more coming up a little bit later tonight. Nice Kobe white threads design. You're just a salty Nick's fan, says Chipper. Hey man, I like the players on the Knicks a lot. I have nothing against them really. But that, and maybe we've talked about this, Chipper the other night, I feel like we did, but it's worth saying again, it's ownership. That ownership's got to change. I mean, I don't think Dolan's gonna sell the team anytime soon until people stop going to the game. But I feel like there's enough people that still go to the garden to, so until they protest, you know what I mean? Like, I don't think really a lot's gonna change. Another John Morant threads. Yeah, that's the problem, right? 75% of Madison Square Garden gets filled with corporate people, not real fans. Right, and they're keeping it going. So like, Dolan's just like, yeah, I'm just gonna hang out with like my rich Wall Street friends here. You know, the real fans get priced out and Dolan's fooled into thinking that things are going fine. I'm running it fine, it's great. What's wrong? Nothing's wrong. He's part of the problem. He's got to go. I don't know if he has the best interests of the team in mind. Danny Connell. But hey, I mean, if I'm a businessman, I'm not giving up that team either, you know what I mean? And we got a DeAndre Hunter Auto? No, it's flipped around though. I don't know why, let's save that. Dig up your SGA rookie cards too. He's been playing some good ball. People like him a lot. That's right, SGA my friend. Shay Gilgis Alexander. Cousin of Nikhil Alexander Walker. Couple Kobe whites, those are pretty nice too. Kendrick Nunn's. I mean, you may as well put some Eric Pascal's in a drawer somewhere. I mean, I wonder, could they be part of a trade for the New Look Warriors after they get the number one overall pick? Anthony Simons, nice. Autograph for the Trailblazers. That goes to Steve H with Portland. Yeah, SGA. I like his game too. I like this guy's game too, Matisse Tybal. There's SGA's cousin right there. More Kobe white, Brandon Clark, some Zion, some heroes. That's probably Martin and Colise. I like Kobe White's hair like that. Some good show hair there. Giannis, Kendrick Nunn, LeBron, LeBron James, Ja, Luka, LBJ, Luka, Tyler Hero and Kendrick Nunn. Great opportunity for them in the playoffs to significantly raise their stock, right? Their rookie stock. So hang on to those. And that's it, ladies and gentlemen. That was two box, Fat Pack, random team number three from Jaspy's casebreaks.com. Big thanks to everybody who got into the action. I think there's one more left. The fifth one, break number five. Break number four is already sold out. That's coming up. Break number five should sell out at some point tonight. There's Zion right there. So congrats to Chad Meyer with all those Kobe whites. Eric G, you got the Mavs. You get all those Donchiches as well. Even though second-year Donchiches is pretty solid. Lakers, Shane, you'll get all those LeBrons. Danny, Griz, you got all those John Morance and Chad Meyer with the Pelicans. You'll get all those Zions of course and all the other stuff that's been in here too. I think everybody had a pretty, pretty new get a stack of cards and you'll see what happens to these guys. Thanks for watching. I'm Joe for Jaspy's casebreaks.com. I'll see you next time for the next one. Bye-bye.


Terahertz radiation has been shown to be effective at modulating the activity of chemical synapses in the brain. This research suggests that it may also be useful for treating neurological disorders. This article was authored by Xiaoxian Tan, Yuan Zhong, Wei Jieli, and others.


We've got an early lock time for today in MLB DFS, which means my job for today is to get you as much info as I can in a very short period of time, jam it down your brains and allow you to go out to fill out your lineups because lock is at 12, 10 p.m. Eastern on FanDuel 4 today, it's a seven game main slate. So, gonna give you the info you need to fill out good lineups, hopefully in a fast fashion, so you have a lot of time to maximize those lineups. Hopefully get you on your way to have a fine Thursday. Also, we'll talk about the final three games. There's no slate for those yet, but I'd assume there will be eventually. So, we'll break those down later on as well. Welcome on into the solo shot. That's right here on the FanDuel Podcast Network and NumberFire.com. My name is Jim Saunders. I am a senior writer and analyst for NumberFire.com. Here to break down this seven game main slate with lock set for 12, 10 p.m. Eastern for today. If you're listening to this after 12, 10 p.m. Eastern and want some thoughts on those final three games, I'll put the timestamp for when I discuss those in the episode description over on NumberFire.com wherever you get your podcasts. So, if you wanna get that, skip ahead to there for listening after the fact, but the main slate does lock at 12, 10 p.m. Eastern for today. As far as weather goes, just one thing to note for today that is for the brazen the Giants in Atlanta once again very warm there, 92 degrees. That is a bump up to hitters and a bump down to pitchers. Kyle writes in that game would wanna downgrade him as a result of the weather there. Break down the pitchers in just one second with first day sports fans. There is no better time than today to sign up for Fandall Fantasy. For users who have yet to make a deposit on Fandall Fantasy, you can deposit today to receive two free entries. All you have to do is deposit a minimum of $10 in your Fandall DFS account and you will be instantly awarded with two free vouchers. This is a limited time offer so be sure to deposit now and play for free. Head to Fandall.com or download the Fandall Fantasy app today, eligibility restrictions apply. Go to Fandall.com or download the Fandall app for more details. Pitching preview for this main slate, Kyle Wright is the highest salary pitcher on Fandall checking in at $10,500. Clayton Kershaw is 10-3. Robbie Ray is 10,000. Frankie Montas facing Robbie Ray is 98. Hunter Green going up against Kershaw at 9,000. Alex Wood, Dakota Hudson and Zach Plesack are the others at $8,000 or higher. And it's a pretty weird slate for pitching where I don't feel great about anybody, but the guy to me with the best blend of floor and upside is Frankie Montas. And I feel pretty firm in that. So we'll put Montas number one. He's facing the Mariners here, which is a divisional matchup and somehow Montas hasn't faced him yet this year. So we don't have any familiarity issues which I thought would have been an issue. The key appeal for Montas is that he's a good pitcher. He has a 3.33 skill interactive ERA this year. That is the best of anybody on the slate who gets a full pitch count lead should we space on my projections. 25% strike area for Montas is not all that high, but it's important because he's super volatile. He'll have some clunkers and he has had some recently, but he has blow ups too. He said double digits twice, both those were at home. And that's the same thing with this one for tonight. The Mariners are not a team I want to target with They have a 112 WRC plus there and they're also not a big strikeout team, but they're also not a team we need to avoid. I don't think against righties. So I think I need an avoid kind of matchup to jump off Montas here, given the composition of the slate and we're not getting that. So I feel pretty good putting Montas at the top of my list for this one year. So Frankie Montas at $9,800 is my top guy for tonight. I think the second best option by a decent margin is in the other side of this game. That's Robbie Ray, which means Ray, isn't a good matchup because he's facing the A's and they're not good against righties. They're also not good against lefties, which we have with Ray here. He has a 92 WRC plus or they have a 92 WRC plus with a 29% flight ball rate. And Ray showed last week that he still has a lot of strikeout outside. I had actually bet the under on his strikeout prop and I was worried that a shift toward his sinker would hurt his strikeout rate because it had in his first two starts, but then he went out and hit double digits, double barreled freedom rockets right back at me from Robbie Ray. And I still don't think that move will boost his strikeout rates, but he proved he could have upside in the right matchups and this is one of those right matchups. Plus the results have been awesome with that pitch. He's gone seven plus innings twice in a row, one of those good starfs was against the Red Sox. So if he can cut back on the hard contact via the sinker and cut back on the walks while still having strikeout upside, he could be maybe not a better pitcher for DFS, but a very good one for DFS, more reliable pitcher for DFS. Personally, I'm gonna put him second. I think you can make the case of putting Ray above Montas, but Montas has a more steady profile right now. He's at home. And plus the A's have seen Robbie within the past month. So there is more familiarity there than what Montas has with the Mariners. So I think these two guys are definitively the top two options tonight. I feel, you know, I like Kyle Wright as a pitcher, but I think that the weather there, the salary, stuff like that, the matchup make me feel very firm putting Montas and Ray above him. The third pitcher is a guy I didn't think I would talk about this year, at least not in this section. And I probably still shouldn't and wouldn't on a different slate, but that guy is Jose Quintana. I'm not super into him, but I'm into him enough to like him on a thin slate for pitching for just $7,200. Big part of is that Quintana is at home in a decent matchup. He's facing the Cubs. The active roster has a 23% strikeout rate against lefties for this year. They also don't draw walks. And that can allow guys to work deep in games against them. Quintana started the year getting pretty good results, but it seemed pretty fluky because he wasn't getting a lot of strikeouts. And I think that Quintana recognized that because over his past seven starts, he has been going with more curveballs and fewer changeups. The curve is actually a pretty good pitch. He has a 32% whiff rate on it according to baseball savant, a 331 Xwoba against it. It's a better pitch than this changeup for sure. So this is a good swap for Quintana. And he actually has solid peripherals in this time, 3.96 skill interactive ERA, good bat at ball data. So he's not a big strikeout guy. He hasn't had more than five strikeouts in any of these starts, but his strikeout rate is 20% and on this slate, you can live with that. I think I would rank Hunter Green higher than Quintana for upside, but so I'm more likely to use Green than Quintana, but we're gonna talk about Green in the next section. I mean, we were talking about him for both. So I'm fine making Quintana my top value of the night, $7,200, really good salary for him. If you wanna go nuts at hitter, which I don't think you'll need to necessarily, Quintana could work, but I think I'll personally rank him below Hunter Green because Green, but Green's 9,000, so I wanna get an actual value play in there. So we'll go with Quintana there. So again, top pitchers for tonight. For today, I should say Frankie Montas, Robbie Ray, Jose Quintana the top value, but Hunter Green above him at $9,000. Let's move now to Stacks. I'm guessing Zach Plesack is gonna be one of those guys who consistently outperforms his peripherals over a large sample. He doesn't get a lot of strikeouts, but he still has good results generally, but that's not as true when he faces good teams and he is facing a good team for today with the twins. Now I will mention, they're less of a good team and Byron Buxton does not play and I would expect him to sit for today. So do downgrade the twins with Buxton likely sitting, but I still think the primary appeals of the stack outside of Buxton are pretty good for today. Plesack got off to a really rough start this year. He led up a lot of runs to start and he settled down since then and that improvement coincides with his velocity stabilizing across his past seven starts. In that time, Plesack has had some good ones. He's led up one or two earned runs in four out of the seven starts, a 4.390 array, which is not outlandishly bad by any means, not auto stack territory, but he's faced a lot of bad teams. Only two of those seven starts were against teams ranked higher than 19th in WRC plus against varieties. One of the others, the exceptions was against the Astros. He led up seven runs there. The other was the Dodgers last week and Plesack was great there. He led up to just one run over six innings, but they had five barrels in that game and 10 hard hit balls. They probably should have scored more than just one run. So basically Plesack got lucky and I'm not sure how long that luck will stick. The twins are a tough matchup again, a 116 WRC plus against varieties. It's pretty hot at target field for today, 86 degrees, the first pitch temperature in Minneapolis. So I think we should stack the twins here even with Plesack not being a disaster as a pitcher and even with Buxton, I assume not playing for today. This is a spot where we do want to bump up the left, which is part of why I'm okay with Buxton likely sitting because Plesack has just a 12% strikeout rate against them this year. Their ISO is 188. So Max Kepler gets a boost. We have a rise. I've been more okay with than usual recently. I'm still not super enthused by his upsides. So I prefer other guys, but you know, whatever, I guess he's fine. Alex Kiriloff, Trevor Larnack, all could be key options here. Obviously, don't gloss over Carlos Correa to Double Dong last night. If Buxton were to miraculously play, cool. But I think the left, he should be our key targets in this one. Now talk about Hunter Green earlier on. I think that he is the third right pitcher of the night. He actually has the highest strikeout projection based on my numbers. But I also think the Dodgers are the second best stack. So it's an interesting dilemma that you don't get with a lot of guys inside of Hunter Green. The reason I'm high in green is that he is improving. Over his past eight starts, he has been cutting back on his foreseeing fastball usage. He's throwing more sliders and mixing in some changeups, the occasional sinker in there, and it's working. He has a 31% strikeout rate this time with a 26% hard hit rate allowed. The result's been very good too. That's why I've got green as my third right pitcher. But he's still letting up a ton of fly balls. His fly ball rate is 58%. Let up a couple of home runs and four earned his last time out. He's let up four plus earned runs and three out of eight stars in the sample. And that's why we should consider stacking against him. Even if opposing batters have a non-existent floor, like he helped contribute to a no-hitter earlier on this year. So it's a non-existent floor. They have a path to a ceiling. It's a pretty clear path via the long ball. That's what we're searching for here. So I would sprinkle in green as a pitcher, but it'd also be high in the Dodgers hitters for stacks. It's a very weird situation. We don't get it a lot, but I think that we probably should handle it this way with green just based on the way things tend to go with him. In doing so with the Dodgers, I would bump up the righties. Green is not throwing his change up to them, which makes sense, righty and righty, change ups don't tend to be high usage pitches there. But he's throwing just fast ball slider in that situation and his fast ball stinks, which gives the opposing guys an edge, opposing righties. So Trey Turner, Will Smith, Justin Turner to an extent get bumps up. Chris Taylor I think is the best value here at 25. The reason I'm lower on Turner is that he's pretty bad against sliders. Whereas Taylor Smith and Turner at least fine, or Trey Turner I should say are, I would bump down Justin Turner due to his numbers against sliders because he'll probably see a lot of those against green for today. So be high on the righties in this spot, but be a bit lower on Justin Turner specifically. Our third stack is going to require us to use a bad offense against lefties or an offense that's bad against lefties. It is either the Marlins or the Guardians. The Marlins are in a worse park and they're putrid against lefties, whereas the Guardians are just bad and in better parks. Made the Marlins righties for one-offs. You could consider that, but I don't think they're a full stack type situation due to their overall numbers against lefties. The Guardians are facing Devon Smeltzer. Smeltzer was really solid open the year, but he's come back to our sense then and that was pretty predictable because the peripherals have said that he's a guy we can stack against. It's a 5.09 skill interactive for Smeltzer. He has a 12% strikeout rate and a 44% fly ball rate. The one thing he is doing well is suppressing hard contact. He has a 37% hard hit rate in this time, but that's a lot of fly balls to try to work around for Smeltzer. He hasn't been able to do it recently. He's led a multiple home runs in three straight games. One of those was against Arizona, which is a super lefty heavy lineup. So Smeltzer's struggling and I don't want to stack the Guardians against the lefty because they are pretty bad, but I will do that here. I think they're the number three stack and I also wouldn't blame you entirely if you put them above the Dodgers given what Hunter Green can do. It does help in stacking the Guardians at Fromio Reyes's back. He is one more powerful rightie to have here. We can include in stacks. He hit the ball really well during his rehab assignments. He went deep in his first game back in the big leagues too, but also struck out four times. So nobody's perfect. The strikeouts less of an issue against Smeltzer than other guys. So I'll be high on Fromio Reyes at $2,500. Oscar Gonzalez went deep last night. He's been one of my favorites for a bit now. I'll be in on him again at $2,600 for tonight as well. So Fromio Reyes, Oscar Gonzalez and Jose Ramirez, all really good options within this Guardian stack. I will do some Dinger picks here, just for funsies for this main slate. And speaking of Jose Ramirez, he will be the boring home run call for the main slate.  It's too easy. So I would say Jose Ramirez is the boring home run call for the main slate. The fun one, I'll go Alex Kiriloff. I went to Trevor Larnack last night, didn't work. Could have gone Max Kepler, but that doesn't seem as boring. So I'll go Kiriloff here. Again, hit the ball really well in triple A when he got sent down. He's been, okay, since he came back up, a lot of hard contact in that time. So he's not this big of a fly ball guy, which means I didn't want to be as high in him for Dingers, but still fine with Kiriloff. So the home run calls for the main slate, Jose Ramirez and Alex Kiriloff. That's all we got here for the main slate. Let's talk here about the late slate. If you are listening to this and don't wanna play the late slate, see ya. Have a good day. We'll talk to you tomorrow for Friday's slate. But the late slate here, don't have a slate up yet, so no salaries. But on Joe Musgrove is my top pitcher on the late slate. He's coming off the COVID IL. He apparently did test positive, but he didn't miss that much time. I think he was out on the 16th, so about a week exactly. So I think he should still be stretched out. Probably an indication there weren't a lot of sentence with Musgrove. He has a 26% strikeout rate, which is the highest on this slate. The Philly's pretty good offense, but not invincible. So I would say that Musgrove is my top pitcher of the late slate for tonight. I'm not totally opposed to Frumber Valvez. Think of these kind of interesting, but very risky, obviously, against the Yankees. For Stacks, my favorite is the White Sox facing Dean Kramer. Kramer has made just three starts so far this year, and he hasn't been bad, but he's led up enough hard contact and enough fly balls for us to feel good about stacking against him. The White Sox got Tim Anderson back, so they're healthier now than they were. That should help them get out of the full season slump they've been in, it seems like. So I think that that could work out pretty well, and I would rank the White Sox highest for stacking. Second for me would be the Orioles in that same game. Facing Johnny Cueto is not bad, but letting up a lot of balls in play, 40% hard hit rates, and a 46% fly ball rate. Orioles are a good enough offense to be lively. They did well last night for us, so that game overall is the best for stacking. Whether it be the White Sox or the Orioles, it's also the warmest game of the night slates. So I would say White Sox, Orioles, both prime spots to go for stacking if you're playing that late slate. Mr. Funzees will do some Dinger calls here, because why not? For the boring one, I'll go Anthony Santander. I think that just in general, he's a tremendous hitter, underrated, went deep last night off at Lefty, but still someone who has a lot of power no matter who he's facing. So Anthony Santander will be my primary guy there. As far as the fun one, I'm gonna go with Andrew Vaughn. Vaughn, I just think that this White Sox team, even though he's facing a righty, Vaughn is still really good batter. He's finally earned more full-time playing time, even against righties. So I'll go with Vaughn. Home run calls for the late slate. Anthony Santander and Andrew Vaughn, assuming again that that late slate is posted, which I would bet that it will be, I don't think they'll miss out a chance on the chance to post the slate. So I'd bet there is one up. Musgrove is a pitcher, White Sox and Orioles is the top two stacks there. That is all that we have here for today on the solo shop, but we'll be back once again tomorrow to break down Friday's main slate. Also USC and NASCAR are all in the same place. So make sure you are subscribed to the Number Fire Daily Fantasy podcast scene wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like what you hear, leave us a rating and review as well. If you've got any questions for me, I am on Twitter at Jim Sonnis, J-I-M-S-A-N-N-E-S. You can also follow the FanDuel Podcast Network at FanDuel Podcast. Big thank you to everyone for tuning in for today. Good luck to you with your MLB DFS lineups. We'll talk to you once again on Friday to get you said for that main slate. This has been the solo shot right here on the FanDuel Podcast Network.


Daily Tech News show is made possible by its listeners. Thanks to all of you, including Scott Hepburn, Bjorn Andre, and Jeff Wilkes. Coming up on DTNS, Apple wants NFL Sunday ticket and more, but the more might be too much for the NFL. Plus, Andrea Jones-Roy explains why scientists don't really know how AI works. It's a black box. This is the Daily Tech News for Tuesday, Tuesday. It's Tuesday. It says Tuesday. Tuesday, November 22nd, 2022 at Los Angeles, at job merit. From Columbus, Ohio, I'm Rob Denwood. And heart skipping a beat is the producer, Roger King, which is me. Roger at it right. It's all good. Sarah Lane helped produce today's show. She's not with us right now, but her fingers are all over it. We got Andrea Jones-Roy coming up. Let's start with the quick hits. Microsoft told The New York Times that on November 11th, it offered Sony a 10-year deal to keep the Call of Duty franchise on its PlayStation platform. Since announcing its intention to acquire Activision Blizzard, Microsoft has repeatedly said it plans to continue releasing Call of Duty titles for Sony's consoles. Access to the popular game franchise has frequently been brought up in regulatory reviews of the deal. Automatic CEO Matt Mullenwick said that Social Network Tumblr will soon support Activity Pub, the decentralized social networking protocol used by many so-called Fediverse apps like Mastodon. This would allow users on Mastodon or any other Activity Pub-supported app to follow a Tumblr account from their Mastodon instance and vice versa. Mullenwick said support would be added ASAP, but offered no specific date. So Mastodon uses Activity Pub to do the Fediverse. So if Automatic puts Tumblr on Activity Pub, would it then be part of the Mastodon Fediverse? Philosophers want to know. The UK's Competition of Markets Authority opened an in-depth Phase 2 investigation that will focus on the supply of mobile browsers in regards to Apple and Google's market dominance, as well as Apple's restrictions on cloud gaming services on mobile. The investigation could take up to 18 months to complete and then forever in the courts, but they're looking at the duopoly. That's the takeaway here. The markup reports that major tax filing services including H&R Block, Tax Act, and Tax Slayer transmit financial information to Meta through the MetaPixel. Data sent varied by company. Tax Act sent gross adjusted income, names, emails, and refund amount. This information was also sent to Google Analytics but omitted names. H&R Block sent health savings account usage and college tuition information. Tax Slayer used Facebook's advanced matching system to try and link site visitors to Facebook accounts, sending phone numbers, name of the filer, and dependent names. Intuit's TurboTec used the Pixel but only to sign in and send usernames at device sign in time. After being contacted by the markup, Tax Slayer removed the Pixel to evaluate its use. Intuit modified it to no longer send usernames and Tax Act no longer sent financial details. Oh, that's nice. It's nice that they're not doing that anymore. He got caught. Oops. Reuters sources say the People's Bank of China is readying to fine FinTech giant Ant Group more than a billion dollars, likely over alleged violations regarding disorderly expansion of capital. That's apparently a crime in China and resulting financial risk to the country. Ant Group has been under intense government scrutiny since it scuttled its 2022 IPO. The scrutiny began and then the IPO got scuttled. The fine may single that the crackdown is near its end. Usually when you write the check, then the problem is resolved. We'll see. All right. Oh, that's the end of the quick hits. Let's talk a little more about what's going on with Apple and the NFL, Rob. So the athletics sources say Apple is still the front-runner to get the rights to NFL Sunday ticket, but the negotiations are taking longer than expected. NFL Sunday ticket lets viewers pay to see all the NFL games happening, except those in their home market. Those are exclusive to the local CBS and Fox channels. Direct TV has had the product for decades, but the contract is up after this season and Apple, Amazon, ESPN and YouTube are all reportedly making bids. Now, Apple has been reported to be the front-runner for a while now, but supposedly what the athletic is saying is it wants rights that aren't in the current package that Direct TV has. And that is what's making the negotiations take a while to resolve. That probably includes things like VR and AR, right? Those wouldn't have been in the Direct TV agreement because there weren't any rights to give there. And it's a pretty good bet that Apple was going to come out with some kind of mixed reality headset early next year. So they might want to write that in. NFL Sunday ticket also doesn't include international streaming rights right now. So it might be that Apple wants to work that into the deal because Apple likes everything on Apple to be available worldwide. And Apple might want to get the rights to those local games, the so-called blackout games, like it did with its deal with Major League Soccer. Major League Soccer, all the games are going to be on Apple TV, whether they're in your local market or not. So they might be trying to get the NFL to give in on that, which would require Fox and CBS to weigh in, which seems like a difficult negotiation. And another thing complicating matters is that the NFL is selling its stake in NFL media, which operates the NFL website and the cable networks, NFL Network and Red Zone. Red Zone switches between games as teams get close to scoring. Last December, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell told the Sports Business Journal that the NFL was months away from selling that stake. The NFL may not want Sunday ticket and the NFL media stake in the same hands, but Apple does. From an office sports reported in March that Apple wants to buy both Sunday ticket and that stake in NFL media. Yeah, that reminds me of what Netflix was saying about wanting to control all the aspects of a relationship with the sport. So we haven't heard Netflix involved in this one, but it does sound like Apple. Don't know, Rob, what's your best guess? Is Apple just trying to get as much as it can and it'll settle for what it can get? Or is this going to be an all or nothing thing? No, there's no question. Apple wants everything it can get. And we will see whether or not they, you know, what they're going to be willing to accept. But the NFL is one of the most powerful brands in America, if not the planet. And I think they're trying to be very careful that we don't want to give up too much of that power to another single entity. I mean, you know, to an even more powerful. They don't want to give too much juice to another company that already has a lot of juice. So I think that that's probably a big part of what's going on here. Yeah, I think Apple has got a lot of cash to wave around in front of the NFL. But the NFL is also a brand that has a lot of influence and sway and a lot of cash of its own. So maybe Apple's cash wave and doesn't work as well with the NFL as it does with an AI startup in Silicon Valley, which is probably dragging out these negotiations. That's a really good point. I like what I like the idea. We don't really know what's going on. This is all based on reports, but I like the idea that Apple would like to make it simple. That's a very Apple-y thing to do. And they have done it with Major League Soccer to great effect. You subscribe to Major League Soccer, you get all the games done simple. Don't have to figure out where you are if you're traveling or whatever. You just get the games. If they can pull that off with the NFL, I mean, that would be huge, right? It would be huge. The issue that I've seen with this is forever you've been able to watch your local team play with some exceptions. I mean, there definitely are some blackout dumbness that the NFL has. But for the most part, if you live where your team is, you can watch your teams play on Sunday afternoon or whatever day they're playing. That would change if now Apple controls this.  It wouldn't have to. They've done a deal with Major League Soccer where some games can be broadcast. They could do a deal with the NFL that says, yeah, Fox and CBS can keep carrying the local games. That's fine. We just want to be able to stream them in that same market. So you have a choice. OK. Yeah. OK, so that's a choice.  We don't want anybody going to watch it on Apple TV when it should be us. In which case Apple would then have to come and say like, well, what if we let Nielsen credit you, the viewers that are on our stream for your local advertisements? And I don't know that Apple's going to want to do that. That's where the headbutting is. It's not that Apple wants you to stop the broadcast. It's that Apple wants to be able to stream it. Because Apple can work its own advertising. Just promote its own stuff. So yeah, this is it's taking longer than it should. And there's a reason why you take longer than it should. You're talking about two of the most recognizable brands on earth and neither one wants to allow the other to have too much. Well, Apple wants it. The NFL doesn't want to give it up. That's that's what I think a lot of this is, you know, how can we how can we make the money and also keep a bit of the power? Yeah, and it gets confusing, especially if you don't follow it closely, because there's blackouts and blackouts. There's the NFL tradition of a blackout because they didn't sell enough tickets, right? The Raiders historically never had their home games shown because they didn't sell enough tickets in Oakland back in the day. That's a different situation. And I don't think it happens very much if at all anymore, right? The blackout we're talking about here is if you have NFL Sunday ticket on Direct TV and I live in L.A. I can't watch the Chargers or the Rams on NFL Sunday ticket because they want me to watch Fox or CBS for those. But I can watch all the other games and then it's different. If you if you live in Columbus, I assume the Browns are going to be blacked out or maybe the Bengals too, right? But but but you're going to be able to watch all the Bengals are Indianapolis.  So yeah, this is it's interesting. But yeah, those those old we didn't sell enough tickets. The Browns used to get caught up with that when they played in the old Cleveland Municipal Stadium because that thing sat what 90,000 people or something like that. Infinite number of people. It's just it's like just I mean they were given tickets away to school kids. People walk over the street. Hey, come in and watch this.  So I'm glad that that's pretty much solved with smaller stadiums. It does feel like Apple's going to going to get something out of this. I doubt they walk away just because they can't buy. I mean, we didn't even talk about them buying NFL Network. I could see them taking that and just putting it on on Apple TV and saying NFL Network now available to everybody. That would be an interesting play. Red zone. Same way. I doubt they'll walk away from this if they don't get everything they want. I assume it's still worth it even if they just get the same deal as Direct TV. My guess is they'll be able to get more than what Direct TV had, even if it's just the mixed reality stuff. What would be the thing that you that you would like to see as an NFL fan? I don't have a problem with Apple getting it so long as I can easily subscribe to the stuff that I was able to easily subscribe to before. And Apple, they may want everything. I don't think they would walk away because I have to remember that there's a big company named Disney that is right behind them in the negotiation of this as well with ESPN. So there are other players, so they can't play too hard of hardball just because, okay, we'll just go ahead and do that deal with Disney. It was more advantageous to the NFL. So they've got to tether this really carefully to make sure they don't close themselves out by trying to have everything. Yeah. Apple could write the bigger check. I think that's why they're the front runner. Even the Amazon, they can write the bigger check. Certainly over Disney's ESPN or even Google's YouTube these days. So it's a matter of how much they can get. And that's actually a pretty good bargaining position. Would you like to take less from Disney or would you like to give us what we want? All right. There's lots of ways. If you got thoughts about this, let us know your favorite team and which streaming service you would like to have get the NFL. How can they folks get in touch with us on the socials? So feeling social, get in touch with the DTNS audience on socials at DTNS on Twitter, at Daily Tech News Show on TikTok and at DTNS pics on Instagram. Machine learning, deep learning. All these different kinds of algorithms out there that people call AI are used a lot more often these days. They're in your smart devices. They're in your smart homes. They're in your text to image generators if you're out there doing the Dolly. There's a rising concern though, it's been rising for a while about the fact that we really don't know how these algorithms get their answers. Recently, Chloe Zhang wrote a story called scientists increasingly can't explain how AI works. We asked Andrea Jones Roy, data scientist, comedian, circus performer and host of majoring in everything to join us again to talk about why that is and how big of a problem this might be. Andrea, thank you for doing this. Thank you so much for having me. I always love talking about problems with data science. So it's interesting, but it's very interesting. So thanks very much. We're happy to benefit from that being your thing. So what did you think of this article, first of all? So it's an excellent article. I'm really glad that it's out there and circulating around. As you said, it's not something that's a new problem or something that is new in terms of data scientist awareness of the black boxness. But I think we really cannot say enough out loud and as far and wide as we can that we do not know what's going on in the vast majority of these models. In some cases, that doesn't matter. But increasingly, as you said, if we are going to apply data science machine learning AI and we use those words, maybe problematically interchangeably as well. If we're going to be using all of that in our everyday lives, we really should have an understanding of what's going on in them and an understanding of the limitations of those models. And how those models might actually be incorrect and what that might mean for all of us.  Oh, thank you. It is something that I think is becoming more well known that it's a problem. If you can, is there an easy way for people to understand why that is? I think a lot of people say, well, you built the thing, why can't you tell how it works? Right. Well, I was thinking about this and one of the easiest ways in, I think, is to think about machine learning in contrast with statistics. And for now, I'll focus on machine learning and we can sort of leave aside that AI is a deeper deep learning or more complicated machine learning. But even a simple machine learning model, one of the things I say to my students is even those, we don't exactly know how they work. So if viewers remember their statistics class or even if you don't generally in old fashioned statistics, what we're doing is we're saying here's a set of variables that I think matter, right? Here are a couple of data points that I think might explain the GDP of a country, you know, the population, the this, the natural resources, all that good stuff. And in statistics, we the researchers specify that model, we say, I think this is going to be positively associated with GDP. And we build it out. And then we test it and estimate it and evaluate it. And we kind of do some diagnostics. Obviously I'm oversimplifying, but that's what we're doing. Sure. With machine learning, we're basically saying, here's what the ingredients are. This is sort of the simplest version of machine learning. We say, I'm going to take those exact same data points. I'm going to take GDP, population, natural resources, all that stuff.  I'm going to tell you which ones to look at. And then you find out what the patterns are that best explains that thing that I want to understand or predict, which is GDP. And in that case, even in this very simple model where we've been very clear about what the ingredients are, we maybe collected the ingredients, we can look at every data point. We only get output that tells me, okay, the computer says this is the estimated effect. The computer says this is the predicted value two years from now. Or if we increase natural resources by this amount, this is what we would expect the value to be in the future. And we don't really know from those models as easily as we do with statistics. We don't really know the why. We're very good at point predictions and we can evaluate how good our predictions are by waiting until the future arrives and then saying, hey, we got it right or we got it wrong. And there are other techniques we can use to test within the model, but we never walk away with a sense of like, ah, this is why it works. You really have to do a lot of gymnastics and machine learning to walk away with something like, now I understand why natural resources is a strong predictor of GDP. Or I have a sense of what the deeper underlying reason is for such and such playing a role. We tend not to get that. And in this particular example, it may not matter that much because if all I want to do is make some investments in some countries that I just care that I'm right. But if we're doing things like hiring algorithms, assigning scores to students, evaluating whether people are ready for parole, deciding whether or not someone is a reliable person to loan and make a mortgage out to, which are all things that companies use data science and machine learning for. And we don't know why they're making those decisions. We can't actually unpack whether or not those predictions or decisions are are right or fair or going to lead to longer term problems down the road. We just we just don't know. Tell me if I have this right. So in the first example, the not the not AI related example, I create a formula, a very complex formula where I'm like, I will put in these kinds of cows and this kind of grass, and it will tell me estimated milk production of the cows. And if it if it's far off, I made the math so I can look and go, oh, I waited that too much or I did this calculation wrong. Whereas with machine learning with deep learning, we're saying here are a bunch of cows.  We know the math is good at associating things, but it's not good, particularly at associating cows the way our original example was. So it just outputs stuff that looks right. But you can't look at the equations it uses because the equations are for associating things, not specifically for cows. And so you don't know how it got to its answer. That's basically the idea for statistics. We also don't necessarily go in and say, oh, I'm going to wait this 2x or 3x, you know, when we estimate, you know, a regression line, it can tell us that the slope should be two or three or whatever. So there's still, you know, an element of guessing there, but generally that's the idea. And if we think about, and you might say, well, in this simple example, I can probably work out backwards what the coefficient on cow and sheep and whatever should be. And sometimes we have like a settlers of Catan model or something like that. But you think about the kinds of things that we do for like facial recognition and various, you know, things in your home, you're using maybe thousands of variables.  So that's probably an in deep learning. Basically what you're doing is you're doing one of those algorithms, and then you're using that result to feed into a new algorithm and then using that to feed into another sort of this nested machine learning situation. So you simply, the amount of time it would take for a researcher to tease out what any one prediction is doing would probably be, I don't know, maybe a full week of work. But that would be for every point prediction that you're making. Like it quickly becomes impossible and intractable, which is why we use computers to do it. And part of the reason data science, it's kind of like that. You just need a deep learning algorithm that can tease out why the deep learning algorithm did its thing, but then you'll need an algorithm to tease out that one. And yeah, yeah, yeah. Exactly. It's like the, I don't know who the philosopher is, but it's, you know, if the brain were simple enough for us to understand, we wouldn't be smart enough to understand it. Like that's kind of what's going on here is that what's cool is that it can do a lot more than humans can do as far as taking all these variables. You know, we have an intuitive sense of, yeah, I think you want more cows or more sheep. And the computer, it can look at all the sheep that have ever existed in the whole wide world and combine it with everything else that we decide to feed to it. And we just don't know why we got those outcomes. And as I said, in many cases, if what we're trying to do is predict, maybe we don't care another limitation on sort of the machine learning revolution that I talked to my students about in addition to the very profound biases as far as like who gets sentenced to how much time in prison and all of that which shows is very racially biased, for example, is, is we really don't walk away with much of an understanding and so regular statistics, call me old fashioned, but regular statistics, tends to be more useful for saying, well, like, in a more generalizable way, what are some of the mechanisms by which increasing cows in our country would give rise to GDP? I'm not saying you can't get that from machine learning, but you can almost, you can in many cases learn more about the world through a simpler model. And because it's simpler, we can then generalize it and actually think about policies in another way. I'm not saying one's better than the other, but you know, explanation and point prediction are two very different exercises. That's great. I mean, we haven't even gotten into so what do we do, we're going to have to have you back to talk about that because that's a whole topic of its own but would you say if you had to leave the listeners with with one thing, it's, it's that you should just be aware that these tools are useful but they're not perfect or something like that. That's pretty close to what I would say. I would say the number one thing and as I was reading the the excellent article and vice that that prompted this conversation, I think it's so important. They put it extremely well. It's just so important that we as humans realize that even though machine learning deep learning AI sounds incredibly sophisticated and it is very complicated. It's not the same thing as saying it's a correct or capital T truth interpretation of the world. And one of the things that I really get concerned about is when I work with companies and CEOs and really smart people who stare at data all the time and make really big decisions using data and using the output of machine learning variables is we've got to remember that all of these, all of these are wrong. I mean they're not useful but every prediction is an estimate. We the researchers the humans have chosen. I've still told the computer hey pay attention to cows and sheep as opposed to chickens and cars or whatever it is right and I can make that list really broad but I'm deciding what data to look at and I'm letting the computer do what it will with it. But that doesn't mean that I've actually gotten to a capital T truth answer because maybe I'm missing a whole bunch of data that I left out. Maybe the data itself is super biased. I over counted cows. I under counted chickens because most of them were underground. I don't know how chickens work right but I think the humility you know it sounds so technical and it is very technical and it can get very very very precise but that's not the same thing as being right and we've got to use our own human judgment and our own ability to say. This is prediction makes sense. What am I leaving out what am I over counting when I look at the results of my study am I systematically denying more people of a certain type. Loans from the bank is that a problem can we look into it and so it really you know machine learning outputs are information and they're useful but they're not correct. So algorithms are like people basically some of them are good but nobody's perfect. I love that. Andrea thank you so much for helping us understand this if folks want to find more of what you do where should they go. I am at Jones Roy J. O. N. E. S. R. O. O. Y. On all the social medias and at Jones Roy dot com. Fantastic thank you so much. Thanks for having me. Real quick. I wanted to correct myself earlier I said that the Ant Group scuttled its IPO in 2022. That would be this year they did it back in 2020 so sorry for the verbal typo. Rob you ready to check the mail bag. Let's do it. We got an email from Will who says I'm a 40 year old father and I was lukewarm about 3D programming until I saw Beauty and the Beast in 3D. It was like a moving pop up book and was incredibly entertaining. Animation is incredible in 3D and for that alone I was super sad it didn't catch on better. I'd be thrilled if it came back and would pay a hefty premium for it in Disney Plus in particular if they offered that content. Thanks again for the wonderful work. He isn't the only one who emailed us about 3D TV. No David sent a letter in and says as someone who bought a 3D TV during the 2010s craze and enthusiastically tried to use it. The Sandra Bullock movie Gravity was fantastically immersive in 3D and so were sports like football soccer to the rest of the world. Formula 1 antennas I can tell you what I think killed the 3D. Twitter. If you recall those were also the heydays of Twitter when we were all talking about the second screen. We were all live commenting on sports events as we watched them and you just can't do that with 3D glasses on. I remember filling torn technology or community in Twitter 1. But now that Twitter is dying maybe 3D can make a comeback. Maybe greatly exaggerated but good one good one David fact that you want to look down at something else kept the glasses off your face which is which is a good one. And then we also got this one regarding the chicken and egg problem with content for 3D televisions. There's already a driving force for new 3D content VR virtual reality is the perfect medium for 3D movies shows sports events etc. And by targeting VR platforms content providers would at the same time target 3D TVs. Finally I think the biggest question is what sort of glasses free technology will be used. If it's something like a light field display then we're not talking about just 3D televisions but full on holographic displays and those would be awesome. That is also a very good point. Thank you Sergei for sending that one along. Rob you weren't here yesterday when we were talking about this. What do you think you ready for convenient glasses free affordable 3D television or do you not care. Well those are all three good descriptors of what it has to be convenient affordable and I'm not wearing a helmet to just watch television. Just just just not going to happen. So I think that you know that this email that was talking about VR that might be the place where 3D really starts to take off because you know granted those headsets are not going to be inexpensive but they're not going to be as expensive as a you know as a 85 inch you know 3D television and it doesn't require you to wear glasses or headset. So I think that it's just I just don't know the technology has caught up to any other part is that you have to have all of the you know all of the content has to be created in 3D. Last thing I wanted to have this really expensive thing that I watched 3D content on and there's no 3D content to watch on it. It's another good reason why Sergey may be right either VR or AR or mixed reality right that could do both because then then that addresses David's point where well I can look at mastodon Twitter Facebook whatever in my mixed reality glasses I don't have to take them off to look at I can get both my 3D television and the mixed reality stuff in the same place and then if the content isn't available 3D. I don't feel like I wasted it because I'm using the headset for other things too right. Absolutely like I said it's you know like these things are not inexpensive. So if you if there's multi purpose for it. I think that you know you probably win there. I could see buying you know a 3D headset much more quickly than buying a 3D television that does not require a 3D headset to wear and watch with it. Well thanks again to Andrea Jones Roy for talking to us about AI earlier in the black box. If you want that vice article be sure to head to DailyTechNewShow.com and get the link. It's a good article and thank you Rob. Great having you along. Tell folks what you've got going on these days. I'm just a couple of other tech podcast so you can find me always over on SMR podcast at smrpodcast.com and my newest show you know the tech John at thetechjohn.com that's the tech J A W N excellent. I want to give a big thank you to our brand new boss William. William just entered the patreon. Thank you William for backing us at patreon.com slash D T N S extending the ability of this show to continue to serve you and it's down to William and every other single patron who helps us. We give you value. We give you value. You give us a little value back and we keep going for almost nine years now. So thank you William. Welcome to the fold and stick around William because as a patron you get the extended show Good Day Internet. You can also catch the show live Monday through Friday 4pm Eastern 2100 UTC. Find out more at DailyTechNewShow.com slash live. We're talking tech layoffs tomorrow with Megan Maroney who just experienced one herself and Scott Johnson will be here too. Talk to you then. This show is part of the frog pants network. Get more at frog pants dot com. Diamond Club hopes you have enjoyed this program.


that is to be expected from Paris at COP 21 and what element should be in a legally binding agreement under international law. But before I go into that, let me give you a little bit of background. When parties negotiated a next step beyond the Kyoto Protocol, we entered into this Durban platform decision adopted in 2011 and that mandate, that decision asks parties to negotiate an agreement legal in nature which is applicable to all parties and which covers all thematic areas of climate change regime which are mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology development and transfer capacity building, transparency of action and support. And what we are focusing here today is what that agreement legal in nature would look like. Under international law, a legally binding agreement means you can have a treaty under Vienna Convention of Law of Treaties. That means a treaty that is negotiated between multiple parties. So a form of that agreement can come as a protocol or a treaty or a convention or even you can call it an agreement. But what is most important is when you look at the agreement whether it is legally binding or not is the obligations within it and the provisions to actually enforce those obligations. And obligations within the Paris Agreement, if it is to be most effective and has highest possible legal rigor means that it will have obligations for conduct and obligations for result as well. And obligations for conduct means parties will have obligations to communicate a pledge on mitigation, on finance and even on adaptation and maintain that pledge over time to raise their ambition. And obligations for result means parties oblige to achieve those pledges, achieve those targets through a multiple of actions. So as I mentioned, if the Paris Agreement to be more successful, there should be obligations for action as well as result. And another key element of a legally binding agreement is rules around transparency of action and transparency of support as well as rules around accountability of those actions that parties take. And the last point on a legally binding agreement, a key point on legally binding agreement is provisions for compliance. What happens if I don't achieve my target? What happens if I don't keep to my obligation? And that means you have to have some kind of provisions to ensure enforcement or ensure compliance under the agreement. And these are the key elements that needs to have for a most effective agreement that has the highest legal rigor under international law. But the negotiations continue, parties are trying to make compromises, trying to find the middle ground. Some parties don't like to have, for example, the highest enforcement mechanism. They want to have punitive, non-judicial, non-intrusive, facilitative mechanisms to ensure compliance. So we don't know how the agreement is going to look like in Paris. But these are the key elements to look at if you are following the legally binding discussion in Paris.