Save 10% with my code bobby10 on raw organic grass-fed and grass-finished freeze-dried organ meats from grassland nutrition. Link in the description box. Still, this doesn't justify eating factory-farmed steak though, does it? Why not though? But in and of itself. If you for example don't have enough money though and you are starving on your vegan diet though, then you can eat factory-farmed meat though. On top of that as an atheist you can eat humans as well because you don't have any god in your life. All right guys, welcome back to the channel. If you're new, my name is Bobby. Guys, today we're going to react to rationality rules with his video veganism will win, but you're wrong about why. Rationality rules is an atheist YouTuber and as far as I know, he's a vegetarian, not a vegan. Yes, rationality rules because it is rational to be an atheist. Let's have a look. He really has the moral high ground. Atheist discussing moral high ground. Can you see the joke? All right, so um, toss it to you. The amazing thing is I briefly considered what to order in light of having to face this moment and then I said, okay. Wasn't worth it. That's right, yes. Now why make it easy on myself? Why make it easy on myself? I once said of Sam Harris that he'd be remembered long after we're all dead, as if he's in the lofty category of Darwin, human Einstein. And while I certainly no longer believe this, I still hold Harris in high regard. He's played a crucial role in the development of my thinking and for that, he'll always have my gratitude. He's undoubtedly an extremely intelligent, insightful and well, moral person. Why are you atheists so obsessed with morality? Where does morality come from? You heard this question a billion times before, but you still cannot see it. You're going to die, close your eyes, and that's that. There is nothing after death. Remember, there is no consequence to what you do. There is no good and evil. Everything is subjective anyways. So what is morality to begin with? What do you base it on? On society? Does society dictate what moral is? If that is so yet again, why does it matter? Why do you care? There is no consequence to what you do.  What's the reason? Or is he in his moral landscape? He champions the thesis that morality is about maximizing well-being and minimizing suffering. So consequent is well being good. If there is no ultimate good, if there is no right and wrong, why is well being better than suffering? Why? So I'm basically a consequentialist. And yeah, when he gave up on veganism due to dietary needs. I do eat meat. I was a vegetarian for six years and began to feel that I wasn't getting enough protein. Which is a premise our grant for sake of argument. What did he do? Did he attempt to figure out what exactly his body was missing? Say protein, amigas, iron or vitamin B12, and then source the animal products that can supply this with the least amount of stuff. Exactly. Because we know in detail what is found in red meat. We are so scientifically advanced. We can tell you every single atom that is found in red meat. Of course, we do not. Just look at nutritional science and how it is evolving. We constantly find new factors, beat vitamins, beat preformed vitamins, beat anti-nutrients and what not. You're going to tell the guy to simply eat oysters. No human being has sustained a diet based on oysters. And moreover, yet again, why is the suffering of the cow bad if there is no bad? No, he went straight for steak. Oh, bad evil. There is no animal with much of the same physiological apparatus as us. So what? What's more, he buys it from a restaurant. So it's very likely factory farmed. Now, this doesn't strike. So what? Yet again, even if you grant the premise, I'm going to use the same wording as you, and you are about maximizing human well-being. Go into a restaurant enjoying a steak, newsflash maximizes human well-being. Look at me as consistent with his thesis. So maybe Harris doesn't drink his own Kool-Aid. Or maybe his thesis needs revision. Or maybe Harris is a moral monster. Well, I think that I have. What is a moral monster? Do I have to repeat myself one more time? Morality in your worldview is dictated by society. So let's go back to Nazi Germany. Within that society, you would have different moral views. Are they therefore correct? A compelling reason as to why Harris is not vegan, as to why I'm not vegan. And indeed, as to why most of us are not vegan. And in this video, I'll do my best to explain it. That said, though, let me make clear from the outset that I'm not claiming to have an ethical argument against veganism. No, I'm merely going to provide two reasons as to why I don't buy the case for ethical veganism. How about human nutrition? To properly nourish a human being, you need animal food. And then controversial argument that most people subconsciously reject ethical veganism for one of the same reasons that I do.  Yeah, I know, it's a tool order. But well, I'm suffering. It's a challenge. Let's see if I can serve it.  The day may come when the non-human part of the animal creation will acquire the rights that never could have been withheld from them, except by the hand of tyranny. The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the whims of a tormentor. Perhaps it will someday be recognized that the number of legs, the hairness of the skin, or the possession of a tail are equally insufficient reasons for abandoning to the same fate a creature that can fill. What else could be used to draw the line? Is it the faculty of reason or the possession of language? Humanity? But a full grown horse or dog is incomparably more rational and conversable than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. Yeah, how about the potential that that toddler one day will become a flourishing member of society and the cow cannot be there? Even if that were certain, what difference would that make? The question is not can they reason nor can they talk, but can they suffer? Is suffering bad? That's my main man, Jeremy Bentham, dropping one off if not the most famous vegan quotes. And upon hearing it at the age of 18, I couldn't stop thinking about it. And yes, I know I was a really cool teenager. In fact, I lost a lot of sleep over Bentham's words until six months later I gave up meat and poultry entirely, becoming a pescatarian. Long story short, five years later I became a vegetarian and since then I've been progressively reducing my dairy and egg consumption, with today my diet consisting of about 95% vegan products. Give it a year or so and I strongly suspect that I'll be entirely vegan. But it's not because I find the ethical vegan arguments convincing.  So yeah, why do you do that? The question is, why am I not vegan yet? This seems... No, the question is, why are you vegetarian for so long? It's like a fair question.  And it's certainly one I get a lot in the comments. No morals, no God, no ethic, who cares? In fact, it's such an interesting question that when pitching a series of topics to my wonderful patrons, they overwhelmingly voted for me to answer the vegan question.  And I think this is probably true, it's solid advice. And... advice I should follow. But as I'm certain my patron will appreciate, I think that taking a swing at some of the harder topics is the right thing to do. Come whatever may. Too many minds avoid this topic, because frankly, I think they're morally confused. And this includes my form. Just looking at this guy you know, he didn't need to tell us that he was listening to hours and hours of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and alike brainwashing himself. And you know what? Perhaps I still am. You'll be the judge. Okay, man. Drawing from Tyler Doggett's Stamford Encyclopedia entry on moral veganism, ethical vegans tend to stake their argument on two premises. With the first claiming that certain actions, killing animals for food we do not need, for example, are wrong. Okay, why do babies die when their third vegan diet? Why do we have a 84% dropout rate of veganism? Why do we have so many depressed, sick vegans on antidepressants? Can you please answer the question? Premise asserting that a mode of production or event, recreational hunting, for instance, instantiates the first premise. Schematically, this is X is wrong, Y involves X, therefore Y is wrong. Among the candidate values for X are causing animals pain for the purpose of producing food when there are readily available alternatives, extorting sentient beings, inflicting suffering or to give a human scent. Yeah, the premise is always that there are alternatives. Listen, man, just because the vegan cheese from the distance looks like regular cheese doesn't mean it has the same nutrients. No plant food has vitamin B12. We're talking about real, authentic vitamin B12, not some supplement gunk. No vegan food has vitamin D3, DHA, EPA or proper vitamin A. So there is no real alternative. Trick example harming the environment. Your whole example is wrong. And candidate values for Y are industrial animal farming, free range farming, dairy farming and recreational hunting, to name but a few. Now, my illustrations are going to focus on the dairy and egg industry. That is, vegan objections to vegetarianism. And it's for two reasons. First, it's because I'm a vegetarian. And a large point of my meandering here is to explain why I'm a vegetarian instead of a vegan. And second, because it stands to reason that a successful moral argument against the vegetarian position is going to simultaneously defeat the omnivorous position. It's so self-defeating and frustrating to listen to you, man. We already deconstructed that if morals are based only on society, society is ever changing. We could technically evolve into a society that only eats humans. Everybody that dies becomes food. There would be morally nothing wrong with it. If we accept it as a society that that is good. Remember, there is no universal good. There is no universal evil. There is no right and wrong. Essentially, everything is coincidental. So therefore, even your thoughts are just coincidence. There is absolutely no coherent thought right now being produced, you're just flesh. The first position entails all of the harms caused by the vegetarian position and then some. So what I've done is found an argument for ethical veganism that strikes a healthy balance between one, being a strong argument and two, resembling a typical popular argument. And in the process of attempting to still man it will account for the dialectic. In my opinion, too often vegan arguments are shut down due to certain details being undefined or misunderstood. And my hope is that this approach will mitigate these issues. To feed the world as it is right now with our mega cities, we do need factory farming. Why do we need it? Because plants do not have the nutrients that are contained within animal flesh or the organs or the excretions. Chicken periods! Do you get it? Plants do not have the same nutrition. Therefore it becomes necessary. If altruism foundation is not the strongest argument for veganism is as follows. Premise one, we shouldn't be cruel to animals. That is, we shouldn't harm animals unnecessarily. Premise two, the consumption of animal products harms animals. Premise three, the consumption of animal products is unnecessary. Conclusion, therefore we shouldn't consume animal products. All right, let's get back to his arguments. We shouldn't be cruel to animals. We shouldn't harm animals unnecessarily. As I already said, plants do not have the nutrients that are contained within animals. So therefore it is not unnecessary but rather necessary. Premise one is false. Premise number two, the consumption of animal products harms animals. Yes, animals eat other animals. You are atheists. You see human beings as animals. So therefore if animals eat other animals, we can proceed and continue to eat other animals. On top of that, if you take the Darwinistic worldview, we are the top of the food chain. We are the apex predator and therefore we can eat other animals because we're just animals. If animal products harms animals. Premise three, the consumption of animal products is unnecessary. As already explained, no, it is not unnecessary. Vitamin A, vitamin B12, DHA, EPA, vitamin D3, K2, the list goes on. Conclusion. Therefore we shouldn't consume animal products. Now this strikes me as a broadly convincing argument and the author solidified with a very compelling question. At which point could one plausibly block this line of reasoning? If you consume animal products, then which of these premises do you reject? Because all of them. Seemingly we have to reject one of these premises or go vegan. Yes, all of them. And I say seemingly of course because it's possible that one can completely accept the vegan argument and yet simultaneously be convinced of a mutually exclusive argument that supersedes priority. So all of them and health being at odds with veganism.  I began to feel that I wasn't getting enough protein. Still this doesn't justify eating factory farm steak though. Does it? Why not though? But in and of itself. If you for example don't have enough money though and you are starving on your vegan diet though then you can eat factory farmed meat though. On top of that as an atheist you can eat humans as well because you don't have any god in your life. The argument is pretty simple. If we shouldn't unnecessarily harm animals and the consumption of animal products unnecessarily harms animals then trivially we shouldn't consume animals. It's that simple. Okay, trivially we should go out into nature and kill all the predators so no animal can ever eat another animal. Let's fix it. Let's analyze each of these premises and then strengthen them when and where we can. Premise one. We shouldn't be cruel to animals. That is, we shouldn't consume animal products unnecessarily. The statement that we shouldn't be cruel to animals is very compelling since rejecting this implies that one is perfectly fine with animal cruelty. Yes. But without the word unnecessarily in the forefront. It's not even cruelty.  Even though I've seen kids do that. It is about food production. The death is very quick. If you compare us killing animals to any other animal killing animals you will see that we are the most compassionate ones. This premise is just false as it's easy to conjure a situation and where people kill animals is justified. For instance, the poisoning of rats to prevent spread of disease. Killing rats with poison is without a doubt extremely cruel. It's a very, very nasty death but it can in certain situations be justified on account of it being necessary to keep children safe etc. And especially when other means of preventing proliferation are not as effective. The restated form of this premise however doesn't suffer this objection since it states that we shouldn't harm animals unnecessarily. Given this let's drop the form apart. We shouldn't harm animals unnecessarily. Or as my dear friend Alex O'Connor has more potently put it. That extraordinary harm and mistreatment requires extraordinary justification. Lastly let's switch the word animals with sentient beings as it's the capacity to experience feelings and sensations that's of specific relevance not the kingdom a being belongs to. Now for sure I'm being pedantic here and despite this change I will from here on use the words animals and sentient beings as if they're synonymous. But since we're strengthening the argument let's dot the i's and cross the t's. Premise 2 The consumption of animal products harms animals. On a literal reading this premise is just false. It's not the consumption of animal products that causes harm but rather the process of acquiring the animal product that more often than not causes harm. When a hunter cooks an egg Nobody likes a wiser it's not harming the deer. No he harmed the deer and the deer's kin if it had any when in an act of pure masculinity he equipped himself with an incredibly powerful and accurate weapon found a safe space and pulled the trigger from hundreds of feet away. Isn't the gun a people? Likewise when someone such as myself cooks and eats an egg I don't harm the chicken. No I harm the chicken when in an act of pure masculinity I paid someone else millions of feet away to harvest the chicken period for me. So it's not the consumption of animal products in and of itself that causes harm but rather the deliberate acquisition of products from sentient beings that causes harm. Now I use the words deliberate acquisition because it carries the connotation of consciously and intentionally obtaining the product and not necessarily with currency. If for instance I did some gardening for someone on the assumption that they're cook me fish and chips as payment as I said if you don't have god you have to go through all of those mental hoops payment then make no mistake about it I would be deliberately acquiring the fish but suppose instead that I found a dead fish washed up on the beach and decided to take it home and eat it in this case is it fair to say that I harm the fish or deliberately obtain but who harmed that fish maybe it was a bigger fish maybe we should start an investigation send the police into the ocean well as far as I'm convinced the answer is no and so I just don't see an explicit issue with such an act to be clear I've never done this but given my understanding of ethical veganism this seems perfectly consistent with it just so long of course I'm not deliberately walking along the beach to find dead fish now some will argue that taking the fish harms other animals that would have otherwise consumed the fish and while this objection is worth considering I think it's ultimately nullified by the fact that vegans also harm surrounding animals when they forcibly occupy land to produce and consume crops thus since both cases suffer the same objection within the context of comparing the two cases this objection can be ignored to get back on the rails the question is does the deliberate acquisition of products from sentient beings harm sentient beings at a glance the answer is obviously yes when I buy a pint of milk I pay for an industry to harm sentient beings however there are some interesting objections that are worthwhile mentioning for instance in order to acquire the milk it's necessary to ensure that the cow receives adequate shelter and sustains which in the state of nature they often don't from this it can be argued then that on average farming increases the well being left and right here what's more if it wasn't for humans yes exactly man on farms animals live like they are in heaven they have access to food 24-7 in abundance and on top of that they do have shelter they are super safe in nature they would be eaten from the butt hole up oh they pull him by his penis or what are they doing I am assuming animal projects that billions of animals wouldn't have existed and thus experienced any happiness in the first place now while a fair few find these objections compelling I'm not among them we've never applied these objections to humans that is we'd never say that since we provide shelter and sustenance to other humans we can confine them and end their life prematurely yes because they're not humans although if we didn't eat other humans they would never experience any happiness in the first place and once human comparison comes up the dialectic spirals in a thousand different directions and so we're put a pin in it here that said if there's enough objection to this premise I'll revisit it but honestly I think it's philosophical masturbation to argue that the delivery alright guys and this sit I'm gonna cut it off here this guy is in love with his own voice he can listen to himself for hours I personally cannot the video is long enough as it is if you want me to continue right now we at minute 13 of the video and the video is 31 minutes long if you want me to continue then I will for today I'm shutting it down if you like the video leave it a thumbs up if you haven't subscribed already guys please do so if you want to support this channel all the links are in the description box below thank you so much for your support and as always may god bless you all yes you too atheists much love and peace


Arrectile dysfunction is considered an important cause of decreased quality of life in men. In fact, so much so that one early theory suggested that this may explain the link between impotence and heart attacks. Depression is a risk factor for coronary heart disease, and the thought was that men who couldn't get it up became so depressed that they liked to die of a broken heart. But now we know that erectile dysfunction and heart disease can be two different manifestations of the exact same root problem— diseased arteries. Inflamed oxidized cholesterol clogged blood vessels, so no wonder a diet chock full of anti-inflammatory, antioxidant cholesterol-lowering plant foods would improve sexual functioning in both men and women, as well as reduce risk of heart disease. But why go low risk when you can shoot for no risk? A totally plant-based diet can even stop and reverse our number one killer. Of all the plant foods individually examined so far, nuts are among those most tied to longevity. Just two handfuls of nuts a week may extend a woman's life as much as jogging four hours a week. So if nuts reduce the risk of heart disease, might they also help with sexual function? Well, men eating three to four handfuls of pistachios a day for just three weeks experience a significant improvement in blood flow through the penis, accompanied by significantly firmer erections. This may not be surprising. Remember how antioxidant-rich foods have a viagra-like effect of boosting nitric oxide production? Well, pistachios are certainly rich sources of antioxidants. And remember how the citrulline and watermelons helped with erection firmness? By boosting arginine, which is what our body makes nitric oxide out of? Well, pistachios have a bunch of arginine, which may help explain the improvement in blood flow. And we know that cholesterol is an important predictor of sexual dysfunction in both men and women. And after just three weeks on all those pistachios, there were significant improvements in cholesterol. And like other studies that piled on hundreds of calories of nuts a day, there was no weight gain. Conclusion, just three weeks of pistachios resulted in a significant improvement in erectile function with additional improvement in cholesterol without any side effects. Note the two important differences between diet and drugs, just taking drugs like viagra to poison this enzyme and artificially boost nitric oxide signaling is just covering up the symptoms of the underlying problem on healthy arteries. Whereas eating whole healthy plant foods like nuts actually helps attack the root cause of cholesterol, oxidation, and inflammation and only has good side effects. This enzyme has that viagra-like drugs muck with is primarily found in two places in the body, the erectile tissue of the penis and the retina of the eye. That's why the FDA encourages people to stop taking drugs like viagra and call a doctor right away if you experienced sudden loss of vision. Of course, you can still find your phone. Though the harms tend to be self-limited and reversible, such as cyanopsia, in which your vision suddenly becomes tinted blue, why risk side effects at all when the problem can be reversed, cured in the first place, improving the quality and quantity of our lives? Improvement of sexual function in men and women should be added to the growing list of clinical benefits brought about by healthy lifestyles in human beings.


What are you doing to look after yourself today? I'm on my motorcycle and this is one of my favorite spots in the Yorkshire Dales in the world actually. And I come here, it lights me up. I appreciate and value the tranquility because I've come to realize tranquility breeds creativity. So all of this flows into my whole creative energy. I just love it here. What do you do? What are you doing today to take care of you? What do you do to treat yourself? What lights you up? What is your soul love doing? And can you do some more of that today? It's self care Saturday.


So, as many of you know, for the remainder of the month, I'm currently working on finishing the game, and while I'm working on it, I had to rig and animate a variety of kinds of enemy characters, which gave me the idea for a new rigging series. But this time I want to try something a little different. I've already covered all the basics step by step, but it's really designed for people that want to go deep into learning every aspect of rigging. So this time I want to try something a little more geared towards those of you who have no intention of becoming professional riggers, but for one reason or another find yourself needing to adjust, animate, or pose a 3D character. Think of it like a blender rigging crash course, but instead of breaking it down into theory like I usually do, I'll show you how to apply the fundamentals directly to a character in a real project. It's not going to be a very long series, probably just four or five videos, but my goal for this series is if you or someone you know have no idea what rigging is or have no idea where to start, you can watch this series and basically learn everything you need to know in 15 minutes. Anyway, I look forward to seeing you there and as always I hope you have a fantastic day and I'll see you around.


Hello, Osolite Sync here. Now, the plan was for me to take a little time to learn the Dictact and a bit more depth for I did any tutorial videos, but in the new gear day jam that I posted last week there was one particular technique that I thought was kind of pretty cool and I hadn't seen anyone else talk about so I thought well Why not let's make a video on that particular technique and see if people are interested in that so the section of the jam that had this technique in was at this bit here Now the part that I want to draw your attention to is this Source synth arpeggio kind of thing going on here now. It's a 16 bar loop But if you listen to that synth part, it's playing constant 16th notes But each time it goes round. It's not actually quite the same sort of arpeggio melody if you've ever listened So it kind of has the same flavor each time we go around But it's not actually quite the same melody arpeggio whatever you want to call it and I want to talk about How that's achieved So in order to talk about how this is done We need to discuss three concepts or features of the sequencer on the Dictact So the first concept we need to talk about is the fact that each Sampler track on the Dictact is Monophonic what that means is that if you have a trig playing and another trig plays Then that new trig will take precedence and the original trig we cut off. So here. We've got a really simple sequence. It's just a Single trig that's playing at the start of each bar and it's playing for eight beats So because these sampler tracks are monophonic if we put another trig in the way say here It will take precedence over the other one and This first one get cut off even though this one should still if we look at its length Be playing for eight beats So that first thing is really simple, but it is kind of the crux of why this whole technique works So the next feature of the single zone needs to talk about is the re-triggering or ratcheting if you like of tricks So here at the moment. I've got a Really simple sequence here with a single No, it's on a single trick at the start there But for any trick in the sequencer we can set up Retriggers, so if we hold down this trick and we press the up arrow here We go into the re-trigger menu. We press it a second time and it will turn the re-trigger on now. There are two Well, there are three actually about two really really key parameters that we have control over here on The re-trigger menu. So the first one is the rate which is controlled by knob e here So if we play this sequence You can hear that that one trigger is actually being re-triggered several times So the rate will govern how fast and it's done as a fraction of a beat so then we're doing 16th beats, but we can do Triplets like this Which is a really really cool trick to add interest into into beats actually or we can do like these really rapid sort of rolls like that Which sounds like a fart Yes, we can get some really interesting Polyrhythm things out of this and that's one way that you can get polyrhythm things happening in the sampler I'm going to go back to 16th for a second the second The important one that we want to talk about here is control by knob D, which is the length again. So this is expressed as either beats or Percentage of a fraction of a bar I should say so the moment we're doing For a quarter of a bar we can change that if we wanted it to carry on for So we could do that or if we just wanted it to do Two steps or two and a half steps and of course if you had different rates here then these sort of lengths Fractional lengths make more sense Again, I'll just pop it back to So the final one here just controlled by H Basically puts a gradient on the velocity. So if we turn this down, we'll hear that it gets quite as we go Yep, it's a cool way of Especially with the faster eggs to kind of create these sort of Dying off rolls things which are really cool So that's really cool. Also if we if we started with a lower velocity on this trick So if I come here You have it build up as well Which is cool So if we combine these two Ideas here where we have a re-trigger here that can go on for eight Beats going at sixteenths if we put another trick here Despite the fact that our Retrigger says it's going for eight beats because the sequencer is monophonic This one will cut off and take precedence Now we're getting somewhere So the final concept we want to talk about is kind of the bread and butter of Electron sequences and that's your conditional tricks. So here we've got a little sequence here which has eight notes on it And as you can see each of these notes is playing every single time We go around Conditional tricks are accessed here on the trick menu if we hold down one of our tricks We have this condition here. We can set up lots of different types conditions Based on how many times a bar is played based on whether or not the fill is is being held down Whether or whether or not the previous trick triggered or not One of the nicest ways to create variation Just a little bit unpredictable obviously is that we can have these sort of conditional tricks based on chance So now that I've done this this particular trick has a 50% chance of playing That's probably a bit low for the say 75 and we can set this up for as many tricks as we want so we can have All of these on 75 percent chance Like that and now if we play You Obviously we're not under complete control as to what we're going to get here that kind of makes for the fun So let's bring all these ideas together. So here we have a sequence which has 16 tricks on it sounds like this Which is nice But obviously every time we play this sequence, it's exactly the same every single time Right. So how can we add some sort of random variants into this? So we're going to combine basically all these ideas together. So the first thing we're going to do is we're going to Just en masse set these tricks To fire off maybe 50 percent at the time. I don't know. I'm just just guessing we can tweak this in a second 50 percent To go left the first one always firing just to keep things sort of rolling along at the start of the bus. So now we have You know, we have this kind of randomized Melody here, which is fun, but it's not giving you this arpeggiator feel where you've got a note happening on every 16th happening. So what can we do? Of course, we can make use of our re-triggers Because uh, the re-triggers will apply in exactly the same way. So let's turn on the re-triggers here That's maybe set them to be fairly long maybe seven. I don't know why I've chosen seven. Let's try eight Um, the reason we're setting That's what I want to do uh re-triggers The reason I've set these quite long is because of course we have no real control over whether any of the Individual tricks are going to fire. So we could have a situation where none of them fire for quite some time But we still want our 16th notes Re-triggering and playing out Let's do it for this one as well. Did I actually turn re-triggering on on these ones? That would have been embarrassing didn't turn them on that one either Did turn them on that one. Okay. So now we have a bunch of tricks Which will have a 50% chance of firing except for the first one which will always fire just to make sure that we have a Some repetition that's actually happening and we have also got re-triggers for 16th notes on all of those triggers As well that will ring out for multiple steps Which now will sound like this Just realized I didn't put re-triggers on this first one. Did I? So maybe 50% is too low because we're getting too many repeated notes So we might pick out some notes that we definitely Want to have a more chance of playing And now we've got this arpeggio feel but it's different every single time I guess if we wanted to make it a little bit more interesting from a Sonic perspective, we could also maybe pop in some sample and hold Control over one of the parameters here, maybe the filter decay time might be cool So And that's always time to add more delay So Okay, so there's just a nice little ad hoc tutorial video for the Digit Act I hope that was an interesting subject I thought it was a really nice little technique that I will almost certainly Use again probably overuse and then never use As is usually the case with a lot of these things that I discover Um, I hope you enjoyed it. Uh, if you did enjoy it, obviously, please If you can drop a like and if you're not already subscribed to the channel There will be lots of dig attack stuff coming up soon For certain because I love it Um, if you want to support the channel at all, I don't have a Patreon or anything But I did put out an EP of sort of ambient music It towards the end of last year. I will drop a link in the description. It is free to download But if you want to support the channel, then you can throw a couple of quid at me And that would be very much appreciated It will all go towards buying more gear because I've got to feed that addiction Anyway, thanks for watching guys. I hope you enjoyed it.


Alex has spent nearly four decades in the process control industry working in processes from making coffee to refining. The first half of his career was spent implementing systems and the second half broadening his experience with time in development, marketing, sales, and service. In this session, Alex will discuss the pros and cons of open automation, centralization, or decentralization. So a warm welcome from the open group please for Alex Johnson. So we're gonna talk about two things that are going on. As the technology is improving, it becomes easier and easier for control system vendors to build a single controller that can run an entire unit or theoretically your entire plant. On the other hand, we also see technology driving intelligence down into field devices. In fact, they're getting so smart and the networks reaching to them, things like APL, are so fast that it actually becomes practical to run the control in those devices, much like Fieldbus tried to do years ago. And I think what we're gonna see is a pull and tug on these two architectures. You're gonna see people asking for both. And as an end user, you'd like to have a solution that addresses both choices. So what are the advantages of a highly centralized? You have a, it's commonly accepted. It's a natural path for the vendors to follow. Peer-to-peer communications are minimized because most of the work is going on in the single controller. And a cyclic process control is fine. You can run it at the rate you want. You're not really dependent on what's outside the scope of the controller, except maybe for, for example, steam pressure and header that's everywhere. And it runs really well. And we do this every day. There are some disadvantages though. The current high availability approaches are expensive and they don't protect against software failures. IO cards can be expensive and making them redundant is expensive. Enlarging an available solution can become expensive if the controller becomes too small for the job. If you add on to a unit, the controller may not be large enough to accept that. And then you have to address how you're gonna split your IO and all of those issues. And the intelligence that's in the field devices is often poorly leveraged, mainly used for in maintenance only when other things could be accomplished. Highly distributed approach has some advantages and some disadvantages as well. If you go highly distributed, you can reduce the impact of hardware and software failures because they're limited to a single field device. So instead of having an IO card with multiple channels and it dies, therefore you need to have two of them, you could limit your system to a single signal failure. It can simplify the control system. It's diverse, it's spread across, but the controls themselves could be simpler. Fewer pieces to deal, less to be installed. Improving scalability, since you would simply add in another field device when you need it, eliminates the cost of the duplicate equipment that I mentioned earlier, and eliminates the cost of the highly available centralized controllers. A lot of times the controllers are quite expensive and having two of them is an additional cost. But there are some real disadvantages with a highly distributed solution. And they're not trivial. You need engineering tools in a distributed runtime that can assure proper execution order and timing. If you put in straight cyclic control in each of your controllers and they're not synchronized in some fashion, then you're not gonna get the control results you expect. So that leads us to this tug of war. You could build a quality system either way with highly distributed or highly centralized, but those approaches do have some gaps that still need to be addressed. Neither approach directly addresses asset-based control, which we're seeing more and more of, a desire to not build a control loop, not build a set of interacting control loops, but to actually control the piece of equipment that's in the plant, and maybe have that intelligence for that piece of equipment come when you buy the equipment so that they interact with each other. And centralized architectures face some availability issues. There's cost and space around the redundant IO. And as I mentioned, there's no protection against software defects as a rule. And distributed architectures face the challenge of control synchronization. So what solutions are out there that could address these remaining challenges? And that's really the core of what I wanna talk about. IEC 61499 is a technology that has been around for a while and hasn't been widely used, I think in part because we weren't looking for the open type systems that we're really pushing for now and that OPAP is all about. It has a function block model similar to the one in 1131 that people have used for a long time, but it's event-driven. So it models the real world rather than doing things cyclically. The event and data IO are there and they can provide data integrity as the signals, the events can be bound to the IO signal and sent through so that you know they all belong. And what's really nice about it is it understands encapsulation and IP protection. You can see in this picture over on this side we have a typical function block diagram. It's not particularly special. In 1499 though, you can encapsulate pieces of those control blocks into a composite function block or even a sub-application. And what's nice about this is that the interior implementation is hidden from the user. It's quite possible that you could build proprietary control algorithms and then provide them as composite function blocks. And the architecture of 1499 allows that to be distributed, but IP encapsulation and protection. So what can we do here? We can create real-time automation applications and we can distribute them. The portability of the code is one of the key features of 1499. Mixing real-time and right-time, what the idea there is we're gonna execute these events as they occur and we can bring that data up when it's necessary to the IT in the cloud. We are going to manage legacy migrations. If you have 1131, the languages that are used in 1499 are the same language so the code can be heavily reused. You can also bring in new algorithms through C++ or whatever the implementation supports. We do improve engineering efficiency once you learn how to use it. You can build the layers of abstraction and model the plant equipment. So we have objects, we have single-line engineering, we can distribute the functionality, it is event-driven and it gives us a level of abstraction so we don't have to know all the details when we're laying out the application initially. Eventually we have to bind it to the equipment but that can be done towards the end. So what we see here is the basic concept of 1499. You have an applications and that they can be spread across the devices in the field and what's really nice is they can be distributed into any kind of device in the field. And field devices and controllers to edge computing architectures can be covered by this. So that means that 1499 allows you to have centralized or highly distributed as a customer choice. You don't have to choose one particular solution. 1499 enables, allows you to take advantage of the increasing field device power and opening up a highly distributed and quite reliable by design. You don't have to work on anything fancy. If a device fails, you lose the one signal. You don't lose anything else. By realizing such an architecture, it requires an event-driven build time runtime and that's what 1499 is all about. It allows you to deploy to those distributed devices. The event mechanism makes sure that the control algorithm operates in the correct order. So you get the behavior you expect with APL and 1499 we can build field devices that have true compute capabilities and avoid the need for centralized controller. If you can have it if you want it. So it gives you the customer choice and commercial industrial offerings are showing up more and more in the marketplace. So that's the gist of my talk. I want to just stress that what we're talking about here isn't that you have to choose centralized or distributed but that you have with its new technology the ability to choose whichever one suits your needs. So that's my talk. We have some questions I hope. Alex, thank you very much. Thank you, a virtual round of applause for your presentation. You took away my first question which side do you come down on centralized or distributed but explained you don't need to answer that customer choice. It's customer choice. And I will say I think you get a potentially simpler system implementation if it's highly distributed because you don't have to have as much equipment to be installed. Right. So can you talk a little about to what extent the open process automation standard is incorporating this or looking to incorporate it? Sure. So 1499 is one of the sections of the OPAS when the 2.1 release of the specification is released it will include a section about implementing with 1499. We in OPAS aren't specifying how that is executed so it could be and most commonly will be I think initially implemented in central controllers but the interesting thing is that the implementation is quite small and the intelligence in field devices is getting much higher and it shows a real potential as a execution environment in those field devices bringing to the world the promise that Foundation Field Bus had but didn't quite deliver but technologies improved a lot since then. Right. Right. It was ahead of its time maybe. I think so. You know, APL when it rolls out will deliver a lot of bandwidth that there was a limitation for most Foundation Field Bus implementations. Do you see this as something that's capable of being included in some way in the certification program that will go with OPAS? Well, certainly as we're going through and writing the section related to 1499 there are going to be requirements on how 1499 is implemented. Right. We're dealing with standardizing. 1499 has a concept called a service interface block that allows you to quote unquote magically pull data from the environment and bring it in to be executed. What we want to do is make sure that the service interface blocks with the common data accesses we need like peer to peer control have a standard implementation or standard interface. Implementation is different but the standard interface so the source code is compatible. So we're going to be doing things like that to enhance the portability of the 1499 source code. Right. Okay. The beauty of the standards approach it's allowed us to do it. It's great. Which option do you think decentralized or distributed is better aligned with machine learning and AI? That's a really good question. It really depends on the compute capabilities of the Edge device. I've worked on a couple of projects well I've been peripherally involved in a couple of projects around oil fields and watching the pump jacks. And what we found was we can do some work around the pump jacks and determine when they're starting to malfunction. But it does require a fair amount of compute there at the jack. But what we're seeing now is that that compute is starting to fit into much smaller devices. And we can do that compute right there on the Edge and then send the results up to notify people that there's a problem with the pump jack. So there's a lot going on in that space. Sounds like it. It sounds like it. We're going to leave it there and move on. But thanks for Alex for your presentation. And if any other questions come in, oh here's one, just come in. Of course, let me close it down. I'll sneak this one in, especially as it's from a, as I know who it's from. Welcome back, Ed Harrington. You're supposed to be enjoying retirement, but glad to have you here. How about the issue around personnel capabilities, centralized or distributed? Any issues around that? Personnel capabilities? Personnel capabilities, yeah. Does one approach favor another? Yeah, that's another good question. I think that currently we have people that deal with the field instruments and field actuators. And we have another group that deals with the control system and all of its cards and their rest. They're both doing maintenance work, but a lot of plants split that work between two different organizations. I think that the distributed one could actually reduce the number of people that are required and reduce the number of skills required. That's a hypothetical, I can't prove that yet. Right, right, one to watch. Again, thank you very much for your presentation. My pleasure.


Gas refrigeration is a type of refrigeration cycle where the working fluid remains in the gas or vapor phase the whole time. Typically this is air because it's typically used in situations where you want to cool air, but where you want to minimize the number of devices and the complexity and the weight as much as possible. Gas refrigeration works by first compressing the gas, allowing it to heat up as a result of the compression process, pushing it through a heat exchanger where it rejects some of the heat that it now has available to it to reject, and then expanding it again in a turbine to get it back to its initial pressure where it now has a lower amount of thermal energy than it started and a lower temperature as a result. Gas refrigeration is essentially the Brayton cycle backwards. In fact, it's often referred to as the Brayton refrigeration cycle.  If you imagine a sponge, which represents the air, full of water, which represents thermal energy, squeezing the sponge allows you to drip some of the water out, and then when you allow the sponge to expand again, it ends with less water than it started. As a result of the compression process, more of the energy is able to be rejected in the form of heat transfer. As a result of not jumping across the saturation dome, we don't have latent energy helping us in our refrigeration process, which means that the coefficient of performance of a gas refrigeration cycle is often relatively low. The fact that it is so inefficient means that gas refrigeration is pretty much only used in situations where inefficiency is more favorable than weight. The aircraft industry, for example, uses gas refrigeration. If you think about the fact that if you are trying to air condition air, then this low temperature air outlet can be used as the actual air you're conditioning in the first place. Furthermore, since what this takes to operate is just shaft work, you can attach this to a power takeoff on an engine and run the entire system with relatively little mechanical complexity. You have a compressor, a heat exchanger, and then a turbine. We can improve the efficiency of a gas refrigeration cycle a little bit by adding in a regenerator. The presence of regeneration improves the efficiency of the cycle a little bit. The downside is this isn't really able to be used in the same direct air conditioning style as the open gas refrigeration cycle. Instead, you are pulling heat out of a refrigerated space through a heat exchanger. So the takeaways of the gas refrigeration cycle are relatively low weight, relatively low mechanical complexity, and relatively low coefficient of performance. And again, the only place you typically find gas refrigeration is in situations where having less weight is more favorable than paying a little bit more work to operate the cycle.


The tech has been really, really interesting, so just so you know, some of the things that are happening is that we might lose audio, we might lose video, we might have all of it, we might have problems with reverb, so it's an imperfect thing that we're trying here as a life in the arts, but we're going to do our best. So please bear witness when we talk about technical things. We would hope for you to stick around. The main focus of this, of this conversation, is to hear from these centers in the West, in the South, South-East, the East, and the North, about how they are bringing their communities together in order to empower their efforts in developing a fear maker. So we're going to get a chance to hear from all of them. We will request from you, we're going to put everybody up. I need to have a copy, or maybe you can remind me, I was supposed to read the six stances.


Hi everyone, Joe for jaspyscasebreaks.com coming at you with a pretty exciting break right here 2019 2020 Panini eminence basketball Random hit 21. We got gale watching live right now Thank you Congrats again for getting in. Thanks to everyone else Whether you won spots, thanks for trying to get into those fillers and congrats again Thanks to the people bought spots straight up. I appreciate everybody All right, so as you know by now, you know the drill I'm gonna open up this case right here We're gonna show you the hits type in the hits and then randomize names randomize hits and see what you get matched up with There it is right here Also, I found another case of this so We have one more if you want to do rock one more tonight. I Would be I would be down to do it Pop this guy open here case Actually is some styrofoam inside and I know some people's ears are Sensitive to that so I'm gonna I'm gonna Pull out the case on my back table there There's a styrofoam right there. It's also kind of messy as well There it is Pretty good-looking case right here. You can kind of see on the top camera right there Like the eminence seal in the middle All right. Yeah for random hit breaks absolutely Josh you want to see You want to see each card be a monster so everyone can get a get randomized a monster so we're gonna go Left to right, you know the drill go bottom row and then top row Try not to peek at the cards. I want to be just as surprised as you Huge card stock, which I really like and the first one is nice five out of five diamond auto Charles Barkley This is all-star Charles Barkley Phoenix Sun's edition of Charles Barkley. All right good start Next is Is John Moran I've heard of him rookie auto gilded greats rookie auto two out of ten John Moran Two plus ten equals his Jersey number so That's something All right next one is Gonna be Tyler hero another great rookie auto six out of ten Explaining some good basketball Two on top one of them is gonna be a Kareem Abdul Jabbar seven out of ten fine silver autograph nice legend Right there Lakers edition. These are those gems at Charles Barkley diamond naturally mined not lab-grown and The card on top is Ooh a dual patch dual autograph RJ Barrett and Hatchimura Rui Hatchimura That's two out of five Rookie dual autograph. That's nice. Both of these guys playing some pretty solid basketball Wow a lot of rookie so far in this one. That's good. All right, and Next one here. I'm trying not to peek We've got some more fine silver This time it's timid Tim Duncan ten out of ten Nice piece of silver right there. Very nice next one is Is Jerry West Nice three out of three diamond auto Jerry West. It's pretty nice the logo on this side. Oh It's a diamond Anthony Davis two out of ten the next two Patch auto I kind of noticed is John Stockton Three out of ten nice patch nice on-card auto. There's John Stockton's high shorts Classic and the last one here is gonna be a one-of-one PJ Washington, Jr He's playing some excellent basketball lately.  All right. Welcome back folks. So I got everything typed in right there. Good luck There's one two three four five six seven eight nine ten hits A lot of train whistles in here. So bear with me on that one Big thanks everyone here once again and good luck fingers crossed a lot of nice hit So I feel like everyone's gonna end up with something nice. Let's roll it Let's randomize it three and a one four times. Good luck Kind of nervous for you guys three and a one four times one two three and a one four times after four Danny down to Gretchen Three and a one four times for the hits one two Three and good luck one fourth and final time the Jama rants on top the Kareem on the bottom and This is how it shakes out for everybody There you go, Danny with the two out of ten Jama rant autograph Gail You got the RJ Barrett and Ruihachi more a dual patch dual auto out of five All aboard the big hit express Dimitri You got the Tim Duncan fine fine silver got the silver piece there silver is going up right the price of silver is going up Tyler hero autograph rookie auto six out of ten is very nice Kobe Chan Jerry West diamond auto three out of three one two three All aboard the big hit express Oran John Stockton patch auto three out of ten Danny with the PJ Washington RPA one of one all aboard Lonnie you got the Charles Barkley five out of five diamond autograph all aboard the big hit express And Gretchen you have the last two the Anthony Davis diamond auto that's pretty sick one off the jersey number and Gretchen with last spot mojo the Kareem Abdul-Drivar silver auto seven out of ten couple Lakers Going your way. I'm Joe for Jasper's case breaks calm Yeah, we have another case listed right now if you want to do that tonight. We can give it a shot Let's keep chipping away at it. I'm Joe. I'll see you next time for that one. Bye. Bye


You know it, Diego from tennis, is that you don't say I'm going to be the best investment banker in the world. Who's going to decide that? Whereas if you want to say I'm going to win Wimbledon, we have a very concrete goal in front of us and we know just what to do to get there, whether you can or not.