The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Wednesday. Wednesday. It's almost Christmas. It's almost Christmas. Hope everybody's having a great week and looking forward to the weekend into a long weekend with Christmas on Monday. Should be a lot of fun. All right. Let's jump right in. We're going to watch a video of Takka Kalsen, which I will comment on. I'm expecting this to go quickly, but you know how it is. Once I start commenting on these videos, this shouldn't be more than, I don't know, two, three minutes in terms of the video of Takka Kalsen, but then it could be take me, I don't know, an hour and a half to discuss it. But no, I mean, kidding. So this is Takka Kalsen. He is here with Glenn Greenwald. Glenn Greenwald, they become very close friends, associates, brothers in arms, you might even say. Glenn Greenwald is a real socialist, but he's also, you know, a certain populist views. He's also anti-war. And was a skeptic, I guess, over the whole COVID thing. So he has gained a lot of supporters and from kind of the populist right. And he is, what did I want to do here? Yeah, he is, I guess part of the populist right. And my guess is that Glenn Greenwald would vote for Trump over Biden and so on. So I'm not going to play anything with Glenn Greenwald. Glenn Greenwald is basically, this is his show. He's interviewing Takka Kalsen. And this is Takka Kalsen's answer to a question about basically the economic views of the populist right. What are the, what are the, what is his views regarding the economics as they're held by the populist right? And let's listen to what Takka, our friend Takka Kalsen has to say. Whoops, why is that? Seems like that's muted. Let's see. I think a lot of people have awakened to the now demonstrable fact that libertarian economics was a scam perpetrated by the beneficiaries of the economics system. So libertarian economics was a scam. Libertarian economics, I assume by libertarian economics what they mean is free markets. It's a private property, respectful private property. It's, yeah, free markets. Libertarian economics is really free markets. When have those been tried?  Takka used to be considered himself a libertarian not that long ago when it was convenient to be so. But when was it tried? Was Ronald Reagan a libertarian economics? Did we really deregulate everything? Is the government not involved in every aspect of our lives? From an economic perspective, is the government not everywhere? Is the government not engaged even today in industrial planning? Is the government not engaged in taxation and tariffs and manipulation of what we buy even under Reagan? Weren't there limits on how many Japanese cars could be imported? Didn't Reagan bail out Chrysler? I mean, when is this mythological time of libertarian economics? Now, he claims that now we are living through the consequences of libertarian economics. I mean, and they keep repeating this. Now, the reason I'm emphasizing this, the reason is that a lot of people listen to Takka. This particular show with Green Guild World only has 39,000 views over the last four days, but Takka is listened to extensively. Many, many, many Americans are now adopting the view. Many, many Americans who used to have a different view, but are now adopting the view that the problems we have today in economics, the problems we have, the challenges we face today are a consequence of too much free markets, of too little state intervention, of too little statism. This is what Americans are internalizing, and this is what Takka keeps reinforcing. And indeed, I think Donald Trump and I think many of the new commentators on the conservative nationalist, on the new right, keep emphasizing Reagan's free market policies have failed. Libertarian economics, no good. What we need is populist economics. There's another way for, another name for populist economics that at the end of this segment, which I will not play. Glenn Grewal mentions the fact that maybe Takka Kaussan is now a little bit of a socialist. Yeah, it's called socialism. That's populist economics, helping out the poor, structuring industrial policy to help up the poor. How has that worked? All right, industrial policy is a massive failure everywhere it's tried, but it doesn't prevent for a variety of moral reasons and political reasons. It doesn't prevent the purveyors of statism and those who would want to appeal to a large array of people, particularly people in the lower middle class, in the working class. It doesn't prevent them from constantly hopping back to status policies that we know fail and blaming all our problems on. This is Takka Kaussan. This is the new right. These are the people you think should govern. And many of you think should be supported. You know, the enemy, according to them, of American people are free markets, free markets. All right, let's listen a little bit more. That was 21 seconds of Takka, six minutes of me. We're not going to get very far at this rate. That they were defending. So they created this whole intellectual framework to justify the private equity culture that's hollowed out the country. That's my personal view. And I've seen it up close my whole life. So private equity culture hollowed out the country, complete nonsense, a private equity culture that has kept the economy, the US economy functioning. It's kept it growing. It's brought increased efficiency, increased productivity. It has actually enhanced American businesses and it made it so that we live in a world in which unemployment is basically effective. Unemployment is zero and where American companies are to a large extent the envy of the world. Private equity culture is a culture of profit maximization, which means increasing efficiency, increasing productivity. Hollowed out the country. Hollowed out what hollowed out the country is the fact that people, conservatives, conservative people left and right sat around waiting for the same old, same old instead of innovating, instead of building new businesses, instead of getting on a bandwagon of new technologies, instead of changing with the times. What's destroyed the old steel jobs are not, is not private equity. What's destroyed the old steel jobs is technology. Competition. But people like Tucker Carlson, politicians like Trump and Biden and the rest of them keep promising to bring the steel jobs back. That hollows out the country. That creates people sitting around waiting for the steel jobs to come back, waiting for their prospects to improve, rather than doing something to prove their prospects. That is the mentality of stagnation. That is the mentality that is destructive to America. It's a sitting around waiting rather than doing. And that is encouraged by those like Tucker, like Trump, like Biden, like Elizabeth Warren. I put them all together for a reason because they all belong together. Like JD Vance, like Manchin from West Virginia who just complained about the sale of financial security reasons, the sale of US Steel. Instead of looking backwards as they do. Oh, what the fifties of wonderful time. Instead looking to the future, a future of AI, a future of robots, a future of immense prosperity. All they can do is sulk and skulk about the fact that some people are making money by making America a better place to live, by making our businesses keep on working. And if we have a soft landing and if we survive the last few years with a decent economy, with people having jobs, you can credit a lot of that to private equity. Now, I know Tucker and Glenn would have liked the state to be bailing everybody out, would like the state to be guaranteeing everybody's job, would like the state to be running all those businesses. But this is why Tucker Carlson is and has been for years, but nobody listens to me, the enemy. I think it's a fair assessment. I think a smarter way to assess an economic system is by its results. So you can assign whatever name you want to the economic system of the United States. You could call it market capitalism. You could call it, I mean, you could call it a whole host today. Well, certainly calling it market capitalism would be a deception because it is not market capitalism. It has elements of market capitalism here and there like private equity. And it has, but even private equity is a lot of private equity successes by taking on debt where the interest is tax deductible. Even there, it is a product of the mixed economy. But what we have is a mixed economy with heavy, heavy, heavy role of the state. Heavy, heavy, heavy role of regulations, controls, taxes and manipulations, subsidies, tariffs, and on and on and on you go. So you can call them market capitalism, but that would be particularly coming out of the mouth of somebody educated and knowledgeable, like Tucker Carlson is, that would be plain and simple dishonest. It would be a lie. But lying is the way to achieve popularity. Lying is the way to achieve political power. And indeed, the results, yeah, the results are not good in the United States. They're better than in any other Western country, but they're not good. They could be a lot better. They should be a lot better. But the solution to getting this there is not to abandon the remnants of market capitalism as Tucker would like, but to embrace them, embrace them consistently and apply them consistently and to get rid of the cronyism that he is demanding by demanding greater government involvement in the economy. Greater government involvement in the economy can only make things worse, not better. Different things, but I don't think any of that's useful. Those are boring conversations. I think you need to ask, does this economic system produce a lot of dollar stores? And if it does, it's not a system that you want. So the problem is dollar stores. That's the problem. Dollar stores where people find bargains, where people go and find cheap stuff, buying cheap stuff, which makes it possible for them to spend more money on other stuff. So we shouldn't let the market provide for people. Dollar stores have always existed in the United States. It's not like they didn't exist in the 1950s. They would just call it something else. I remember really, really, these really, really cheap stores that you could go to in the 1970s and buy stuff basically for a dollar, the equivalent of dollar stores. And that story, if I remember right, that was in Brookline, Massachusetts, a relatively wealthy place, but it succeeded because everybody likes a little bargain.  But this is Takah's problem, the dollar store. Now, if he was complaining about poverty and he's using the dollar store to represent that, but it's not what he's doing. He's complaining about the very essence of bargain hunting and the fact that, freedom, freedom of consumption, we still have some freedom in retail, freedom of consumption. The freedom of supply and demand in the world of consumer products, he's complaining about that, the fact that something has arisen to provide a service to people who want these kind of cheap stuff. Some of them are poor, some of them might be students who one day will be richer, some of them are middle class, some of them just want knickknacks, all kinds of stuff. Because it degrades people and it makes their lives worse. It degrades people and makes their lives worse to seek bargains? Really? How is that? I could get it if you was talking about TikTok, but you're talking about dollar stores. This is the complaint about capitalism, it produces dollar stores, it produces bargains. But isn't that, if you look at the nature of retail over the last 150 years, from the beginning, yes, there was a high end, but there was always a lower end to be able to satisfy efficiently, productively, cheaply, the needs of a lower middle class, the needs of a working class, the needs of the poor, so that they too could have fancy stuff. I mean, here he is sitting in his, I don't know what brand of sweater it is, but Tucker Carlson is a very wealthy man. He comes from a wealthy background. He comes from an elite society. He's sitting there making fun of putting down dollar stores. He's such a snob, a snob speaking for, for the downtrodden. I mean, is there anything worse? Is there anything less appealing than that? It increases exponentially the amount of ugliness in your society, and anything that increases ugliness, is equal, and it's just kind of, let's just start there. Is it the people that are ugly? Is it the stuff in the store that's ugly? I mean, yes, Tucker, I mean, everybody should be able to, it would be great if everybody could shop where you, you know, at Saxford Avenue and places like that. That would be amazing. And maybe one day we will reach that point if we allow for capitalism. Capitalism will make everybody richer, and one day everybody will be able to afford a Saxford Avenue. But they can't today. See, so the fact that some people can't, that makes the system bad? The system that has brought people out of poverty? The system that actually is creating economic growth in the United States, and nowhere else in the world? Because it's not, it's being adopted here a little bit better than any elsewhere? I mean, is that really bringing ugliness to the world, dollar stores? So if it's such a good system, why do we have all these dollar stores? Because there's a demand for dollar stores, and there's a need to be fulfilled. And because people like bargains, and because, yeah, they're still poor people in this country, relatively speaking. But, you know, wouldn't it be cool if there were dollar stores all over the world, and people who could get bargains all over the world? I mean, really? And the dollar store is the clear, I mean, it's not the only ugly thing being created in the United States, but it's one of the most common, and it's certainly the most obvious. So if you have a dollar store, you're degraded. And any town that has a dollar store does not get better. It gets worse. And the people who live there lead lives that are worse. Again, I lived in Buckeye, Massachusetts, and had an equivalent of a dollar store at the time. I don't think it got worse. I think it got better, you know? And actually, today is probably one of the richest towns in the United States, and probably still has some kind of dollar store. I mean, it's just... So, and the counterargument to the extent there is one, oh, they buy cheaper stuff, great. But they become more unhappy. How do they become unhappy by buying cheaper stuff? Now, there is a happiness problem in America, but is the dollar store the fault? Is the economic system the fact that there's too much freedom the fault? Is that the problem? And the dollar store itself is a sort of symbol. What's a physical thing? It's a real thing. It's not just a metaphor, but it's also a metaphor for your total lack of control over where you live. Total lack of control over where you live? God, aren't they... Really? So, if you have a dollar store in your neighborhood, you should immediately be depressed because you don't have any control over where you live. You wouldn't never want to live in a neighborhood that has a dollar store nearby.  Ugly structures. Ugly structures. So, he wants all the small towns in America to have cathedrals in them. Is that the gist? I mean, so an efficient block structure so that you can sell products for cheap, so that people can buy stuff and get a bargain and improve their lives and maybe go home and renovate their kitchen and maybe make their lives a little bit more beautiful because they saved money because they didn't have to buy stuff in a beautiful modern 5th...Sax Fifth Avenue type store or an ancient cathedral. Is that it? You were a consumer, not a human being or a citizen.  Is consumption not necessary to be a human being? Is consumption not part of being a citizen? I mean, this is nuts. This is truly nuts. And this is the most influential public, what would you call it, you know, in the media, public intellectual in the media today. Certainly on the right, the most influential, probably the one influential, period.  They're grotesque. It's wrecked. I've been here 54 years and I watch carefully. That's my only gift is I watch. And this has become a much uglier place, a much more crowded place, a much more hostile place. A much more crowded? Have you really traveled around the country, Tucker, really? God. A place that cares much less about people. So whatever system that produces that outcome is a bad system. And you can call me whatever you want.  I don't care what you call me, actually. I'm beyond caring. Yeah. Well, he is beyond caring. That's fine. So we'll call him the statist that he actually is. But it's more than that. He is dishonest. He knows much better. And look, there is a lot of ugliness in the world out there. You know, a lot of the arts that is supposed to be beautiful is part of that ugliness. You know, the architecture, I would say, of the 1960s was far uglier than the architecture of today. I think the architecture today is much better than it was in the 1960s. Block buildings, glass squares, there's a lot more attempt to make architecture more beautiful than there was in the 1960s when Tucker, I guess, Tucker wasn't born yet, but maybe born at the end of the 60s. So I don't know what he's talking about. If anything, there's been an improvement over time in much of the public and much of the architecture that's, you know, I don't know that there's been an improvement much in homes, but there certainly has been an improvement in public. And yeah, there's a lot of ugliness out there. There's a lot of decay. There's a lot of, there's way too much poverty. There are way too many problems. I wish everybody did shop at Saks Fifth Avenue, but what is the solution? What is the solution? Is the solution more state intervention, more and more powerful unions? Is the solution more redistribution of wealth? Is the solution more central planning? What is the solution? I mean, you could say in many ways a city like Copenhagen is a really pretty city in many ways, prettier than many American cities, although if you value skyscrapers, you're not going to find them in Copenhagen. So do we want 70% or 50, 60, 70% marginal tax rates? Do we want everybody riding on bicycles even in the winter?  Is that what we want? Would that make him feel better? Are there no dollar stores in Copenhagen? I don't know. It's certainly more aesthetic than many American cities, particularly the bad parts of American cities. But what is the price one has to pay for that aesthetic beauty? And by the way, Copenhagen, Denmark, Sweden, less regulated than the United States. So in some parameters, more market capitalism than the United States is even. So what does he want? He doesn't know. And indeed, he doesn't want to label himself because the one thing Tuck has given up on and the one thing the entire right, particularly the new right, has given up on when it comes particularly to economics, one thing they've given up on is on principles, complete negation of principles. All that matters is what works. Does that sound familiar? There's a philosophy relating to that. And that is pragmatism. So let's drive dollars stores out. Do you remember how many, what do you call it, pawn shops? I remember when I lived in Texas, Austin, Texas, in the 1980s, early 90s, there were dozens of pawn shops. I liked the pawn shops because I would go there and buy stuff. I bought some of my stereo equipment in a pawn shop. I bought other stuff in a pawn shop. So I enjoyed pawn shop because there were always deals and opportunities there. But are pawn shops better than dollar stores, worse than dollar stores? Are they more pawn shops today, more dollar stores today, more now than they were in the 1980s? What are we talking even about? What we have today is pragmatism.  He is also, I think there's an element of nihilism. I mean, one of the things I find striking is how angry he started to look over the last couple of years, the frown he has. He has a constant look, that look of I'm angry. You know, I can't be fooled. I'm going to see through you.   Anyway, pawn, pawn, not pawn, P-A-W-N. All right, what else? Yeah, I know, I know. My pawn and my pawn are very similar. What can I say? You're going to have to, you guys have been with me a long time. You continue to struggle with my accent. You'll survive. All right, let's see. I'm going to take some honestest questions because what's $50, but also because it's about Taka and then we'll go on to our next topic. I've never lived in New York, in the way I have a New York accent.  Is he so cynical to drive the U.S. to worse end for his personal gain, assuming he'll be able to skirt the consequences? Yes, I don't think Taka cares. I don't think Taka cares when I order. I mean, he goes to Hungary and he lords Orban. Does he care that Hungary is a country basically subsidized by Germany and rich northern European countries? And that's the only reason why it has an economy. Does he care about the fact that there's no independent media? Does he care about it, you know, liberty or freedom at all? No, I don't think Taka cares. He's picked up on where the energy is in the American public. He's picked up on, he's more Trump than Trump himself. I mean, he is picked up where, as I said, I think I wouldn't be surprised if you went for president. I wouldn't be surprised if you won. He's picked up on kind of what the American people care about and what they want and what they like. And he is engaged in, he is reflecting back all of that to the American people. I think he also has consciously abandoned any kind of principled ideas he might have had in his past. He has become a pragmatist. He convinces himself, he rationalizes to himself that this will make things better. But, you know, he pretends it doesn't matter. He, you know, he pretends that that's it. He doesn't want to go down that rabbit hole about what will actually happen because then he'll discover his own, you know, in a sense nihilism and be horrified by himself. And this is why people, you know, people like this don't go there. They just don't go there. All right, we've just been joined by the, in the chat by somebody says, open borders for Israel. As if I've never discussed this issue of, as if I've never commented on it, as if there's not dozens of probably hours by this point where I haven't explained the issue of Israel.  The dishonesty, particularly after October 7th, the blatant dishonesty of bringing up open borders for Israel after October 7th is so frigging disgusting that people who bring that up and then compare it to the United States really don't deserve an answer.  And it's, again, dishon, completely dishonest, completely dishonest. All right, we'll get to another Tucker question from Alejandro. I agree that ugliness can be evil because at the end the ugliness phenomena in America is Tucker. Yeah, I think that's right. And look, there is ugliness in America. I complain constantly about ugliness, but it's not the dollar stores which serve a function. It's the homes people choose to live in that all look the same and are built from the same mold. And they all look exactly, thousands of homes in these neighborhoods in Denver and Dallas and all over the place, every home looks exactly the same. I mean, that's ugly. And I constantly complain about the lack of aesthetic focus and attention that among Americans, we need more emphasis. Yeah, there's a lot of ugliness in the music that's played today, not just rap but techno and just the boom, boom, boom, boom, boom repetition that is just mind numbing and ugly and has no beauty and none of the truly inspiring features that music can have. So yes, I'm a huge opponent of ugliness and think that ugliness has a real impact on human life. I think it's devastating to human life, but dollar stores are not where I'd focus my ugliness, although a lot of strip malls are kind of ugly and simple, but there are also some, you can see some architects attempting to make some strip malls nicer. And I think if and as we become wealthier, strip malls, what do you call it, they're more and more neighborhoods that are mixed-use neighborhoods will become prettier and prettier. All right, where are we? Yes, Trump. We haven't talked about Trump in a long time. All right, I talked about this a little bit last night, but not in a news show, as you probably all know, because it's the headlines everywhere, the Supreme Court of the state of Colorado has deemed Trump unqualified to be on the ballot because of the 14th Amendment banning insurrectionists from office. And they deem Trump's behavior post-2020 election, his attempt to overturn that election, his egging on of his supporters on January 6th, and his attempts through Pence, and everything else that happened on January 6th to try to stop the legal transfer of power, they deem that insurrection, and therefore they think he is not qualified to be on the ballot for president of the United States. There are probably about a half a dozen lawsuits in different states where this argument has been made. In every other state where it's gotten to the courts and gone up to the states of Supreme Court, as far as I know, it's been turned down. Colorado is the first, but maybe this is only the second one that's actually got that far. Colorado is the first to actually basically say he cannot be on the ballot. Now, this is going to be appealed. The justices realizing that it would probably be appealed have actually postponed taking any actual action until early January to give the Trump team, Trump supporters enough time to appeal this to the Supreme Court. The only court you can appeal a state Supreme Court decision is the Supreme Court. It's very likely the Supreme Court takes this on because ultimately this is a federal issue. It is an issue of the U.S. Constitution. It's not an issue of the Colorado Constitution, which would be a state issue. It is an issue of the federal Constitution, which is the responsibility of the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court will take this, and it is going to be an interesting decision. I suspect they will overturn it. I mean, even in Colorado, where all seven judges were appointed by Democrats, even in Colorado, this only won by a 4-3 margin, I expect this to be overturned in the Supreme Court, maybe even by a 9-0 vote. I don't think there's much here. I think the main issue is this. It's that even though you could argue that Trump wasn't a surrectionist, I could argue that Trump wasn't a surrectionist, and I think that's a very reasonable argument. You need to be able to prove that. There has to be a day in court. There has to be a due process. You cannot just declare him an surrectionist because you find his behavior as a court without actually reviewing evidence and hearing from witnesses and actually having a day in court. You cannot just do that. I think that in the fact that the lawsuit brought against him by the Independent Council does not actually accuse him of insurrection. So he is not being accused of insurrection. It's because he is, you know, who knows why, right? He's been accused in a sense of lesser crimes. It's very hard then for a court to say, okay, even though the Independent Council that looks deeply into the January 6th events and the whole election context, even though he looked at it carefully, even though he didn't call it insurrection, we will, you know, that is not, that is, that's not reasonable, right? So the court, there's no way, I don't think that the court will view it as insurrection. So I think this will be overturned by the Supreme Court. I think the other things that are in front of the court vis-a-vis Trump, the immunity and stuff, is probably not going to go Trump's way, but I think this will definitely go Trump's way. There's just no, it just doesn't make any sense for me. To say somebody is an insurrectionist, you have to prove that. You have to prove it in a court of law. You have to actually bring charges and you have to, you know, it needs to be adjudicated and they should be due process as a consequence of that. As much as I would like Trump not to be on the ballot, and I really would like Trump not to be on the ballot. All right, let's see, EU migration. Migration is a big issue. It's a big issue on the Southern border. We talked about that the other day of the United States. It's a massive issue in Europe and it's an issue that is having dramatic political consequences I think in the United States and I think that it's having dramatic, even more so, more obvious political consequences in Europe. In the United States, Trump knows that this is a powerful issue. It's why he constantly hops on immigration. I don't know or care or think or know whether there's any validity to it, but you know, God, what was I gonna say? I don't know what Trump actually thinks about immigration. I don't think Trump thinks about anything. Trump senses what the mood of the country is and Trump sensed in 2016 that illegal immigration was a big deal, trade with China, a few other things, and he capitalized on it amazingly, elites. And right now almost this entire agenda, Trump's agenda is anti-immigration because he senses that as the mood of the country. Well, the same is true in Europe and you can see that with the Goodvilder's victory, which was primarily driven by anti-immigration sentiment. You can see it in the rise of a real kind of right wing, anti-immigration, right wing, anti-freedom as well, right wing in Germany with the AFD, in France with Le Pen. But really in every country you're seeing it in Sweden, you're seeing it in Denmark, you're seeing it across the continent. The only country that bucked this trend recently was Poland. But primarily because Poland thinks the migration problem probably won't affect them, it's more Western Europe. You saw the rise of a strongly anti-immigration party in Spain, although they didn't quite make it to actually winning the election and making it into the government. But this is probably one of the biggest issues and I think in a post, October 7th post or not just post, we're living through, the kind of massive demonstrations, pro-Khamas demonstrations in Europe, that is only increasing the alarm and the distress regarding migration in Europe right now. But in some ways the European political system, as bizarre as this might sound and as crazy as this is, is more functional than the American political system. In America we have known that immigration system has been broken since the 1980s. Ronald Reagan tried to fix it, George Bush tried to fix it, Obama tried to fix it, nobody tries anymore to fix it. They just put little band-aids on the corners. And Europe, they're actually attempting to fix it. Now I don't think they're attempting this particularly good, but they're attempting to fix it. And they just agreed at the EU level to a massive restructuring of the entire immigration system and restructuring of it. There will be significant new laws passed that are going to tighten the laws on asylum, going to make it more difficult to get asylum, much easier to ship people who don't get asylum out of the country where they are. Also, there will be a significant increase in the capacity and ability of European countries at the edge of Europe, Italy, Spain, Greece, primarily, where migrants are coming in through the Mediterranean, to in a sense lock these migrants up, particularly if there is any suspicion that they might pose a national security threat, lock them up for a period of time and expedite their asylum requests. There are right now in Europe a million people who are waiting to hear whether they've received asylum or not. And then if they don't receive asylum, in almost all cases, nothing is done about it. And some of the more recent terrorist actions in Europe have happened by people who did not get asylum, stayed in Europe and were never deported. Oh, the other aspect of this, which I found interesting in about time, is that you're also part of these laws that are going to pass, it's going to be a package of laws, is going to be a significant reduction in the amount of welfare that they can receive. If you remember during the 2015-16 crisis in Europe, as a million migrants of Syria and elsewhere came across, they all received checks in Germany, they're all housing in Sweden. A lot of that has been tightened up. So Europe is tightening up welfare, it's restricting who can get asylum, it is increasing their capacity and their willingness and the laws making it possible for them to then deport people who seek asylum and they're trying to at least get their hands around the issue. It's unlikely that they solve it. The reality is that people, even if they don't get welfare, people are coming here from Africa, from sub-Saharan Africa. Many of them are coming from sub-Saharan Africa, where life is so miserable, so horrible, so pathetic that they're willing to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean, willing to risk their livelihood by being illegal immigrants in Europe and life is still better than it is in sub-Saharan Africa. And as long as that, even without welfare, and as long as that is the case, it is going to be very difficult to stop this tide. And yes, they can deport them back and more will still come because they won't deport everybody. They can't catch everybody. And as long as these people, these individuals have a small probability of making their lives better, they will keep trying because they're heroic. They want to make their lives better. They're struggling to improve their lives. Whatever you think about the immigration system, about whether more should come, less should come, the people coming are heroes. The people crossing the unbelievable rainforest between Colombia and Panama, and then trekking up the deserts through, you know, all the way through Mexico to reach the American Southern border just to make their lives better. Isn't that what it's all about? Isn't that what we supposedly believe in? Isn't taking risks and to fight for a better life for you yourself? So whatever you think about in Bekta Heaven Society, the welfare state, all of that, the people doing it are heroes. Now, I know I've just lost, I don't know, 25 subscribers because of that comment. In addition to the European Union coming to an agreement, France, I think this morning or yesterday, passed a significant immigration reform bill. Again, France is more, has a more functioning system than the United States does. What's interesting about the law that France just passed is that Macron's own party, dozens of parliamentarians from Macron's own party voted against this bill and all the entire right wing, they're both conservatives and LaPence party, voted for it. So what you got is dramatic restrictions on welfare. You got things like, this will make Vivek's day, children born in France to foreign parents will no longer be automatically granted citizenship. It tightens access to children's and housing benefits for foreign residents living legally in France. It raises the French language requirements for residency permits. So it has raised the costs, the migrants of living in France and getting rid of warfare. I'm always forgetting rid of warfare, although I wish I'd get rid of warfare for everybody, not just migrants. Making language requirements stranger. I'm fine with that. You should know the language of the place you're moving to. And it also empowers the government to expel foreign residents who reject the values of the French Republic. Now that one is what you call the devil in the details. How are you going to do that? How are you going to do that? And what about rejecting, how about expelling French residents who reject the values of the French Republic? And who defines the values of the French Republic? Who gets to define that? The French government? Do the values change from government to government? Leftist values, right wing values, centrist values? Is there a test? Can you cheat on the test? Is there an interview? Who sits across from you in the interview? How do you do this? How do you figure this out? So, okay, we're getting an experiment. I know a lot of people would like America to have a values test before people come in. Well, we're going to get an experiment on how that works. We'll see how it works in France. I'm really curious to see how that one is going to be implemented. All right. So, yes, Europe is starting to get its act together, not because European political parties that organize though care that much, but because the right wing anti-migrants, anti-migration political parties are breathing down their neck. In June of next year, there will be a European parliamentary election. And the expectation is that right wing anti-EU, anti-immigrant parties are going to do very, very, very well in that election. And these are all attempts to take the immigration issue off the table, all attempts to appease the electorate so they don't vote for the extreme parties. They don't vote for the right wing crazies. All right. Finally, one of the most effective weapons we have seen really in the Ukraine war that have really kind of are shifting the paradigms, the military paradigms and how militaries, I think, prepare for future war is the role of drones are playing, both suicide drones, drones that carry missiles, drone swarms, where you get hundreds of drones and you can't shoot them all down, all of that. So the whole phenomena of drones in warfare is one that is going to change the way warfare is done. And there's been investment in lasers and in IMDome time technology that Israel has where you just shoot them all down. But one of the ways in which the enemy can overcome that or try to overcome that is by using these swarms. And there's so many of the drones, some of them are going to get past your, these kind of one-on-one kind of defenses. And the Chinese, of course, but it's very simple and easy and cheap to build drones. Iranians are building drones for the Russians. The Ukrainians are building their own drones. The biggest companies in the world that build drones are Chinese, they build gazillions of drones. And again, these drones can be weaponized, easily weaponized. So one of the new technologies that the Pentagon is looking at in order to deal with this, which I think is really interesting and actually is a variation of something the Russians are doing at the front. And that is, the Pentagon is thinking of using microwave technology. That is, imagine a microwave dish that is then emitting significant microwave waves, microwave waves, I think microwaves, microwaves, that basically fry the electronics of the drones. So they destroy the electronics, the electronic capacity of the drones. And so this, of course, you could do on a large space in the sky and you would fire, so it doesn't matter how many drones they send at you, you point the weapon generally in their direction and it just fires everything that has electronics in the sky. Now, of course, it's a technology that's still evolving. They have to figure out how well it works. I have to figure out the quirks of it, by the way. The Houdies are using drones to attack some of those ships in the Red Sea. And this is going to be a really, really, really interesting potential new technology. This might not be the ultimate solution, but the point is that the U.S. military is aggressively investing and looking at a variety of different ways to deal with this new significant physical threat. The Russians are doing a variation on this. They're using all kinds of technologies to disrupt the electronics of the drones, to disrupt the GPS signals, to disrupt not just drones, but smart bombs and airplanes. Part of the reason the Russians are being relatively good on the defense during the last few months in Ukraine is their ability to use kind of electronic warfare to disrupt the Ukrainians' ability to use really, really smart weapons against them. All right. I thought that was interesting. I hope you found it interesting as well. We have some super chats or just a reminder. We still got about $80 to get to our goal. Remember that this is a show that exists because of support from people like you. Thank you, Larry. Really appreciate that. Larry just did a $20 sticker. I think we got some other good stickers earlier. We got one from Catherine. Really, Catherine is consistent about this pretty much every show. We got Steven. We got Johnny. And we got Jonathan Honing. And of course, Jonathan is going to be on the show tonight. Jonathan Honing from Fox. You all have seen him on Fox. We're going to talk about pets. So a little deviation from the regular stuff we talk about in the Iran book show. We'll talk about pets. We'll talk about Ein Rand and pets. We'll talk about Leonard Pieckoff and pets. Jonathan has a new book coming out. He will talk about that book that kind of goes over Ein Rand and Leonard Pieckoff's Viewer Pets. Please join us. It'll be a fun show. Come on over also. Support the show. It'll be a great, you know, if you like these kinds of shows, that's a little different, a little less, you know, intellectually intense, so and certainly not a negative show. It should count as one of my positive shows. Then please come and support it and tonight. And yes, let's see. What else did I want to say? I wanted to say that we'll have that tonight. December 31st. We will have a review of the year, a 2023 review, and it will be so it will be a long show. It'll be two to three hours, and it will be a fundraising show. We will have a fundraising target, which I will announce probably the day of the show, but it'll be a substantial. It'll be higher than $10,000. It'll be for one show, $10,000. So it'll be pretty intense. And we will be seeing if we can raise that kind of money on New Year's Eve to kind of close out 2023 and hopefully you will be supportive of that and take 2024 kind of accelerate into 2024 with a lot of momentum. Yeah, some of that money, I can tell you now, is going to go for some, I've hired a marketing consulting group to spend a half day with me thinking about developing a marketing plan for the Iran book show so we can accelerate the growth. So part of that is going to go to paying them to do that. So if you value the growth of the show, please support the show now. We showed 58 bucks, but you can also please show up on December 31st at 2 p.m. East Coast time, and we will go until probably 5 p.m. East Coast time and see how much money we can raise. All right, Jennifer, I live in a nice neighborhood, but even here, litter shows up. I pick it up because I want to see beautiful surroundings when I'm out walking Mina. Yeah, I mean, I think that that is the right attitude and it's sad to see people who don't care about stuff like that. I mean, one of the things that I got spoiled in California was that people who take their dogs out in California take a plastic bag with them and they pick up the poop and they take it to a trash can and they throw it out. Sometimes they would try to throw it in my trash can, which I didn't like, but generally they pick it up and they go and they trash it. They don't leave poop lying around, not on the lawns, not on the public spaces, not in the street, not on the pavement. Less of that culture here in Puerto Rico, although just next to our building, which for a while had a lot of dogs pooping all over the place. We put up signs and now we don't get as much of it, but you really got spoiled for that. There is a real value of civilization. It's not about laws. It's not about the state.  You could say California, the whole state is poop. But California is, from a quality of life perspective, put aside the politics, the best place I think in the world to live, best weather and just again, people pick up the poop. It's clean. It's big. It's new. It's comfortable. It's rich. If not for the regulations and the taxes, I would be hugely pro-California. Puerto Rico a little different. I think it's changed because we put up signs and now people are paying attention and we don't get the poop. I don't know if this poop somewhere else as a consequence, but at least we're not getting on our lawn and all things. It makes a big difference when you live in an environment where people show respect for their surroundings. Sadly, you don't have as much of that in Puerto Rico as you did in California. There's a place where I go walking and if you look out to the side where the trees and stuff, people litter there.  They don't have the respect. It's not just private property. Including what you consider public property, it's just a respect for the surroundings you live in and you want them to be nice and clean so you don't trash.  That's civilization. Civilization involves cleanliness. It's part of what it is. It involves beauty and beauty involves cleanliness. Stephen Harper says, I attended a piano recital by Alma Deutsch in Vienna on December 14th. Wow, wow. She played beautiful music by herself and by other composers. This included her new impromptu and the world premiere of a piano concerto number two.  That, well, not lucky. You made an effort and you did it. Good for you. That's terrific. Yeah, I mean, Alma Deutsch. I mean, the thing I love about her most is her focus on beauty. She wants to create. She wants to play. She wants to highlight beautiful music. That's her, if you will, mission in life and that's to be commended. That's a great goal and that's a great purpose. She's an incredibly talented musician, incredibly talented composer, and she produces beauty. And that's great. Don't know how old she is now, but it's wonderful that you got an opportunity to actually see her. That's amazing. A friend of Aristotle, thank you. Would the Alliance allegiance oath that new citizens take as part of this citizenship, ceremony be considered a value test? I mean, in a sense, yes, but nobody takes it seriously. Nobody makes you stand by the oath. I mean, it's not a test. And nobody even checks that you take those, right? It's usually done with thousands of people at the same time. I did mine. There were thousands of people in a big auditorium in California and raised your hand and you took the oath, but they could have been people. I didn't pay attention, but they could have been people who didn't and nobody would know, right? So if that was the case, if you wanted to take the oath more seriously, then you would have to take the oath more seriously and actually watch people take the oath, right? Scott, when you say that GOP should be eradicated, are you saying you want Democrats to be in power until that happens? I didn't say that. I want divided government. I've always wanted divided government. I do not want the Democrats to control all the aspects of power, and I don't want Republicans to control all aspects of power. I think it's a disaster when either party has too much control. I've said over and over and over again for many, many years that this is actually being proven empirically, that the best combination from the perspective of the growth of government, from the perspective of the growth of restrictions on our life, the best combination is the Democratic president of Republican House and Senate. Now, the challenge is, and this is a problem, and I don't know how you get around it, is that as the Republicans become more statists, they tend to cooperate more with the Democrats on economic stuff that is really, really, really bad. But I don't know how you get around that. That's just a reality. So we got the Inflation Reduction Act, and we got the CHIPS Act with the help of Republicans, because they believe in this stuff. They believe in industrial planning now. But I don't see an alternative, because Republican president, Republican House and Senate, they do the same thing. And if a few Republicans who are more free market, or we end a vote against it, they'll pick up some Democratic votes and they're not worried about it. I would like my ideal in this world, and again, I've said this since for 20 years, is a Democratic president, a Republican House and Senate, and a Republican House and Senate where a significant proportion of the Republicans, enough to stop, the Republicans have a significant majority, doesn't have to be 60, but 55, let's say, and where there are enough of them that a free market is that it doesn't happen. The reality is that if you have a Republican president and a Democratic House and Senate, maybe that's an alternative, maybe that would be better. But more power in the presidency is scary when you give it to a crazy Republican like Trump. That's scary. That's one reason not to give it to Trump and to have a check on Biden through the House and the Senate. He's done much less, Biden has done much less to damage the country since Republican won the House. He was much more damaging when he had both the House and the Senate. That's the worst, is the Democratic sweep. But the problem is that with Trump on the ballot, you could get a Democratic sweep. And with abortion, with Texas being nutty, completely insane on abortion, you can get a Democratic sweep. So I'd like divided government, how exactly it's structured. President maybe, and the president of the Republican and Democratic, it depends who the particular individuals are. I would like Trump to lose every single time he runs. I consider Trump a danger to the United States, a danger to our lives, a danger to every single one of our liberties, a greater danger than a Democrat with the Republican House and Senate. Frank asks, why is Andrew Bernstein not teaching at ARU? He's good. I don't decide ARU. And second, I've asked you guys not to ask me questions about what do you think of this intellectual, that intellectual, and so on. But I don't make decisions about ARU. And even if I was, I'm not sure this is the form in which why anybody makes a particular decision should be communicated. Yep, it's my Trump de Wageman syndrome, and I guess I'm proud of it. All right, what else did we, I think we're done. All right, don't forget tonight, 7 p.m. East Coast time. Jonathan Honing would be joining me. The famous Jonathan Honing from Fox News. We will be talking about pets, the value of pets, the rational value of pets. We'll be talking, I think, some really fun stories about Ayn Rand and Linda Peacock that in Jonathan's new book, it'll be a fun show, pretty laid back. Join us, particularly those of you who have pets. I think this will be fun for you. And we are eight dollars short of reaching our goal, just I thought I'd mentioned that. Let's see, what else, what else is there? Yes, don't forget to go to aynrand.org slash start here, where you can apply to go to the Ayn Rand Institute's conference in late March in Austin, Texas, particularly if you're a student, particularly if you're interested in a career as an intellectual. All right, Andrew asked a quick question to get us over the top. I think Rand once wrote how Americans of different income levels would shop at a dollar store while Europeans are much more class-focused and the richer ones wouldn't do it. I mean, that makes sense to me. I think that's true of Rand's view. And look, I think Tucker Carlson is an American aristocrat, a typical philosopher, king, American aristocrat who knows what's good for those poor people, who knows what's good for those, and therefore would like to institute government to dictate much of our economy, because that's the way he thinks about it. Stephen Hopper, I also had a chance to meet Alma and her mother after recital, just one correction. She played her second piano sonata, not a concerto. Oh, did I say concerto? My mistake. You wrote sonata, so you were right. I meant to say sonata, but it came out concerto. That's amazing. Yeah, beautiful young woman, beautiful music, beauty in the sense of what a spirit she has. What a spirit she has. It's exactly the anecdote we need for the modern culture. Talk about ugliness. It's exact anecdote to the ugliness that exists in the common culture. We need more people in more realms of life, in more areas to be oriented and focused on beauty. Beauty. All right, everybody. I will see you tonight. Bye.


Hello, and thanks for checking out this video. We want to introduce you to a toolkit developed by the National Human Genome Research Institute, also known as NHGRI. This toolkit will give you information about some of the best practices to identify and evaluate trainee outcomes in biomedical and genomic research programs. My name is Dr. Lucia Hindorf, and I'm the Lead Extramural Training Program Director with the Training, Diversity, and Health Equity Office, or TIDE. I'm here with Dr. Faith Plant, the Training Director within the Interimural Training Office here at NHGRI. We're excited to tell you about the toolkit, but first, we want to give a brief background about NHGRI, TIDE, as well as our Diversity, Action Agenda, and Strategic Vision. NHGRI is dedicated to cultivating a diverse pool of future researchers, clinician scientists, healthcare providers, and educators. For many years, NHGRI has supported training and workforce development programs with a core commitment to enhance the diversity of the biomedical workforce. NHGRI's education and career training opportunities are done in collaboration with NHGRI's Extramural Research Program, Intramural Training Office, Education and Community Involvement Branch, as well as external partners such as professional societies. In 2021, NHGRI published an Action Agenda to enhance the diversity of the genomics workforce. This Action Agenda reflects a framework to connect early exposure to genetics, undergraduate and graduate efforts, and career development activities to careers in genomics and a greater diversity in the overall genomics workforce. NHGRI also established a new office dedicated to training, diversity, and health equity, called TIDE, which now includes NHGRI's Extramural Training Portfolio. In collaboration with the divisions and offices in the Extramural Program, the training team develops and supports initiatives that expand opportunities for genomics education and careers and cultivates genomic training programs and workforce development initiatives for all individuals, including those from groups underrepresented in biomedical research. As part of these efforts, we have developed this toolkit to help programs all over the country learn more about best practices for evaluating training programs related to genomic workforce diversity, research, and genomic workforce programs. The hope is that this toolkit will be instrumental in supporting you in monitoring the success of participants in training programs you lead, support, or are a part of. For some of you who are already deep in the process of implementing evaluation efforts, we hope this toolkit will complement your ongoing efforts. For others who are newer to the evaluation process or who are looking to reinvigorate your existing process, we hope that the toolkit will be a source of ideas. This toolkit should be regarded as a first effort in gathering information about evidence-based efforts related to trainee outcomes. So what's inside the toolkit? Within this PowerPoint, you will find valuable information about how trainee success can be measured, examples of successful practices for following trainee's careers, and some details on why these matter. You'll also learn about metrics to measure trainee outcomes and success, barriers to identifying and evaluating trainee outcomes, as well as an overview of common methods used for data collection. We've even given you some suggestions about how to design an effective trainee evaluation system for yourself. If you're interested, you can also check out the supplemental report, which provides more in-depth information on each section within the toolkit, including references, methodology, and lots of other details. Here at NHGRI, the success of trainees really matters to us. We need to continue to grow a vibrant, successful, and diverse genomics workforce to be successful in all facets of genetics and genomics. We hope you enjoy the content of this toolkit, and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact us. Thank you.


I'm Jennifer Riley Chetwind. I'm the Director of Marketing and Social Responsibility here at Denver Botanic Gardens. I'm also the co-director of the One World, One Water Center at MSU Denver.  I think they share that approach to wanting to remove barriers of access to all populations and we really do feel, and I can speak on behalf of, oh wow, the university side, but oh wow, the garden side as well. We feel like there's something for everyone, no matter age, where you come from, what your interests are. And I think CVA's waterline exhibit speaks to this when it comes to water. You never know what your hook is going to be. I mean, it may be, you know, you want to practice zero escape in your garden and you want to have low water use plants, but not everyone gardens. You know, you may be concerned about where does your food come from and you want to make sure that it's high quality water that is being applied to your food, or you may just, you know, have some other interest and aptitude that's like, you know, the bigger picture. What is the water cycle? Where does my water come from? I mean, no matter what, there are so many hooks that are going to engage people in different ways. Art is a very powerful hook. At the gardens, we have annual sculpture exhibits and they pull in people, you know, each year it's going to be a different market that that exhibit is going to speak to and that's the power of art. No one collection of art is going to speak the same way to everyone. So CVA bringing in almost 20 artists to talk about their views on water is tremendously powerful. So in our own way, we're trying to do the same thing through art, through plants, through engagement and more than anything, just removing barriers to any audience out there and making ourselves relevant. If you talk about Denver Botanic Gardens, for example, we have education for everyone from little kids, our seedlings classes, learn where food is grown and how plants get to your plate. You know, we have a salsa garden here, the Chipotle Home Harvest Garden and the Children's Garden. That's for little kids to figure out where does their food come from. Then we have a farm program, an active agricultural program at Chatfield Farms that practices water-wise irrigation and water-wise farming. And then we have, you know, lifelong learning programs, whether you're interested in zero escape or whether you're interested in just knowing where your water comes from and knowing what the best plant is and where should you put it in your garden. But beyond that, there truly is something for everyone here at Denver Botanic Gardens so that combining forces with, oh wow, from an educational standpoint makes lifelong learning all the more possible. And beyond just the campus and the gardens, we're reaching out to communities around the world. The Botanic Gardens really focuses on step climates, which there are four major steps in the world, Mongolia, Patagonia, South Africa and here in North America. And all of those regions, you'll find the same types of plants because they grow well in a semi-arid climate. So we're already linked to these regions around the world so there's no reason why we can't pull in, oh wow, to talk about the water impacts in these places.


Hi, students! I have a song for you today. Would you like to sing a song with me? Let's get it. Here it is. Let's make it bigger. It's not that one. It's not that one. It's not that one. It's this one. It's a small song. It's a sharp song today. These are words that describe a computer. Please listen the first time. It is fast. It is big. It is a desktop. An expensive desktop. It is small. It is cheap. It's a laptop. A cheap laptop. Fun song. Easy to sing. We have the words fast, big, desktop, which is the big computer, expensive, small, cheap, and laptop. Sometimes a laptop is expensive and sometimes a laptop is cheap. Sometimes a desktop is expensive and sometimes a desktop is cheap. Let's sing this song again. It is fast. It is big. It is a desktop. An expensive desktop. It is small. It is cheap. It's a laptop. A cheap laptop. Notice how I say is a lot. Now let's sing the song one more time. Let's sing it more quickly. It is fast. It is big. It's a desktop. An expensive desktop. It is small. It is cheap. It's a laptop. A cheap laptop. Thank you so much for singing with me. That is a lot of fun. I really like singing songs. You have a wonderful day, okay?


So, you want to make your own game, but you've never programmed before. Not a problem. Now, a lot of people are afraid of learning to code, and trust me, I know. Because for years, I was in your shoes. I know what it feels like when you got the drive. You're ready to learn, ready to put in the time, and willing to do whatever it takes. But be completely lost as to where to start. And sadly, there's a lot of get-rich-quick coding scams out there that prey on this poor demographic of new and aspiring game developers. And I made the mistake of falling for all of them. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I made every single mistake a first-time game developer could make. So I'm gonna tell you the truth. I'm not a programmer. I'm a 3D animator who learned to program. This was not my degree. So I can't teach you the way a professor in college would. I am gonna teach you to code the way your local street mechanic would teach you how to fix your car. Which means that all I'm gonna do this month is show you the code that worked best for me. And from there, you can build upon and improve it to suit your own project as you see fit. In my experience, your biggest challenge as an indie developer is gonna be balancing how much time you spend coding versus how much time you spend creating the assets for the characters and the environment. Programming is an art. And just like any other 3D art, the same way you could spend your entire life modeling or rigging or animating, you could spend your whole life coding and still find new things to improve. But also, just like any other art, the same way that it's possible to make beautiful music with simple notes, it's possible to make beautiful games with simple code. You don't have to be a genius to make Flappin' Bird or Candy Crush, so relax. There's no rule in life that simple things can't be good. And you would be surprised just how much mileage you can get out of the most basic code. So if you've ever thought about learning to code, but you're afraid that you don't have what it takes, then let me be the first to say that you absolutely have what it takes to program your own game. I was never the best programmer, but you don't have to be the best in order to make something fun. And this month, I'm gonna prove that to you one tutorial at a time. So if you join me next video, I'll explain exactly what kind of code we're getting into and what you can expect to learn this month. As always, hope you have a fantastic day. Now, see you then.


Welcome to This Supercharged. Now, normally when we do our videos, we get lots of comments. We get lots of questions on Twitter, loads of things that kind of come into us. And so we thought, why not? Let's actually take a step back and answer some of those questions. How are SVGs rendered? They seem quite slow. Are they GPU accelerated? If so, in what ways? I have actually no idea. Cool, I do. So they're actually DOM elements. Not only the SVG, but every child is an actual DOM element or the rectangle. Right, so you've got to be careful because if you move them around, they're going to trigger layout. But the layout operation will stop at the SVG route. It's one of the times we actually have what we call a layout boundary where the layout actually is not document-scoped. It's going to be scoped to the SVG element. Would you look at that? The other thing is a transform. Normally we promote this thing to its own layer and then transform it around. That doesn't work in SVG context in Chrome. I'm not sure about other browsers. But in Chrome, we don't promote anything to its own layer when you actually add, like, WillChange or Translate Z0. So it's always a repaint? It's always a repaint. So you've got to be cautious with that. To be fair, I actually expected that for an SVG because I think, for some reason, I think of more than Canvas-like than anything else. Right, right. But hopefully, hopefully some point that optimization might land, I don't know, though. And then are the GPU accelerated? They can be if you've got GPU rasterization switched on. In fact, one of the best ways to improve SVG performance today on mobile is to make sure that you've got GPU rasterization, at least for Chrome, and the way to get that. If you just Google for, I think it is actually Magic Viewport Chromium, possibly. Or, I think, Ganesh or GPU rasterization Chrome, one of those will get you into the world that you need to be in. Next question, is it possible to disable, I don't know why they put, I mean, in quotes. Anyway, is it possible to disable web animations on very, very, very, very, very slow devices? It has to be at least five. And they put three tortoise emojis afterwards. I think I know if that person is getting it. They're going for slow, going for fully slow devices. I can't think of a way to adapt your animations, really. I think what you could do, possibly the performance observer that is in the works at the very least right now, could eventually help you do this. My first intuition when I read this question was that maybe you can kind of abuse request idle callback because that will only be called if your web page is not too busy. And if that is being called, you could use it to enable your web animations. Go the other way around, have them disabled by default and basically enhance your web page with the animations provided it is not under too much of a load. Yeah, the problem I had with that is that you're now main thread. So if you're animating with JavaScript, right? All your animations are coming from the main thread, which is fine. So you can then test for main thread availability with request idle callback or request animation frame or both. But if you've got something that's like a CSS animation that is done with, say, a transition and you're just using the compositor thread and it's just going to keep going even if the main thread is janked up, then you can't use that technique because it's going to be like, well, I can't do any animations right now. And the problem I have is that even with the frame timing API, it's still only main thread availability. So it's kind of going to benefit anybody who's animating JavaScript, but it's not going to benefit anybody who's animating just purely with, say, CSS or something like that. Overall though, the thing I wanted to kind of ask myself was is it the right decision to disable the animations in the first place, right? So I was like, if your UX can stand not having the animation, it feels like you don't need the animation, right? Animations just shouldn't be for the sake of. I think usually they serve a point. And if they don't serve a point, then you might as well skip them because it's about being a little bit mindful about the user's resources. Right, right. So I was like, but I get it's a sliding scale and somebody might be like, hey, it's an added bonus if your device can take it or whatever. As I say, I don't think you can do it reliably today and I don't know of anything in the works that's just like, this is a cast iron way of saying this device should be good to go. But I think you're right. Request that on callback, probably the closest we're gonna get. Well, there you go. So those are the questions that you asked and we would invite you to ask more questions in the comments below. Twitter, I'm at Aero Twist. At Dussurma. That's like, that's like Dussurma but in German, which I learned. I'd forgotten all my German until. I taught him. He did. He did. So ask your questions, ping us on Twitter and we will catch you next time.


So Warner Brothers just released the brand new trailer for Batman v Superman Dawn of Justice. I'm Brandon Keith-Avery and this is just my opinion. And the trailer itself, it is a completely different tone from the two that we got before. And it was very humorous. That's not a bad thing. And I like how I started off. You have Ben Affleck, Bruce Wayne, Batman showing up to a party and him and Clark Kent, Superman are finally meeting. He says, who is that? Oh, it's a new guy. Oh, no, that's Bruce Wayne. And I liked all that. I really liked Ben Affleck's portrayal of Batman of Bruce Wayne. And I think the best thing in the trailer for me, well, the second best thing is Bruce Wayne says, I have an experience with freaks dressing up like clowns. And of course, they got a shot of the Robin costume Jason Todd is killed by the Joker. You know, I really did like that. And he looked at Superman. It's like the whole time they knew who each other was like Superman knew who Batman was and Batman knew who Superman was. And then Lex Luthor comes over there with his goofy butt, cracking jokes and trying to make laughs and stuff. And you know, it was okay, little too comical for me. But then we started to get into the action. And it's more of the same that we got into the last trailer. If you saw on Gotham, the promo that they did where they have Batman wrapped up in chains and Superman comes and I'm asking him, there was a lot of theories going online that that's some type of nightmare dream sequence. And the more I see it and the more I think about it, that makes sense.   It has me intrigued. I'm interested. And just overall, this trailer is just okay. I kind of thought that we would get you know, Batman and training in his bat cave or something. You know, that would have been kind of cool if he was just kind of like, but we didn't get that. We got to got more of the same and I am kind of disappointed because they did show doomsday. I mean, I'm assuming that that's doomsday. I mean, they didn't put a subtitle up or anything like that. But I don't feel like they should have put that in the trailer. Another great thing about the trailer was they show Wonder Woman played by Gal Gadot or Gal Gadot. And I have to admit when she was cast as Wonder Woman, I was so pissed off. I was angry. I was frustrated. I did not want her to be cast because I didn't think she was a good enough actress. I mean, I haven't seen a lot of her work other than Fast and Furious 5. That's when she came on the scene to me. And I don't mean to sound like A-hole, but she just looked too thin to be Wonder Woman. Not that there is anything wrong with thin women, but this is the Queen of the Amazons. I mean, these are warrior goddesses, but I have to admit when she popped up in the trailer, she did look badass. She looked like she was ready to throw down. She looked like she was ready to box one of Superman and Batman. She was in the center and the forefront. That made me happy. I mean, she looked great as Wonder Woman, so I'm excited there. But at the same time, they didn't have to put her in the trailer either. I mean, this is Batman and Superman. Superman and Batman, the two biggest superheroes of all time. All you have to do is show this picture right here and put the date up, March 25th, 2016, and everybody and their mom, cats, dogs, brothers, aunts and uncles are going to go see the movie. This movie is going to break two billion dollars worldwide easy. I'm calling it now. If it doesn't, I will be surprised. And I mean, this trailer was cool. I'm excited. I'm going to be there opening night. Something else that I did also like about the trailer. They showed Batman and Superman fighting. It looks like Superman had the upper hand at one point. He was like, Bruce, stay down. If I wanted to, you would be dead. That is straight out of the Dark Knight Return series. I didn't ever read that graphic novel, but I have the Blu-rays here. Here's part one, part two. And then here's both of them combining the one, the Deluxe Edition. I didn't know they were coming out with this one when I bought, when I bought these right here. But you know, this, I heard is like an exact adaptation of the graphic novel. And I love this. This was freaking awesome. And in these movies, when Batman and Superman are fighting each other, Superman says to Batman something like that, like, hey, man, stay down.  I'm Superman. You're just a man. But I am a little disappointed because I feel that they put too much in the trailer. I really don't feel that they should have put Doomsday in the trailer. I think they should have just saved that for the movie. I kind of feel like I know the whole thing that's going to go on in the whole film. Obviously I don't, but it feels that way. And I don't want to feel that way going into a movie. But overall, I am excited about the movie. The first trailer came out in April. The second trailer came out in July this past summer at Comic Con. And we have this trailer out of all three trailers. The Comic Con trailer by far is my favorite. Now, since Marvel just dropped their Captain America Civil War trailer last week, and I had to compare it to this one, I have to say that I really did enjoy the Captain America Civil War trailer by far. That one blew this Batman, Superman, Dunham Justice trailer out of the water. I'm excited to see both of them. But to be honest, because of this trailer, I am now more excited for Captain America Civil War. I'm still excited for Batman v Superman. Probably going to see it in the theater four to five times if it's amazing, at least. But you know, this trailer was a little disappointing. Just to be honest with you, I just, I don't know, I just feel that they show away too much in the trailer. But guys, that is just my opinion. So let me know what you thought about the new Batman v Superman Dunham Justice trailer. Do you agree with me or do you disagree with me? And just because I like or dislike something doesn't mean that you have to dislike or like something. So let me know what you think in the comment section below. Let's get this conversation going and keep it flowing. If you liked this video, go ahead and give me that thumbs up. And if you did like the video, that's perfectly fine. Just leave me a comment below letting me know why. And still give me the thumbs up. Since you're watching this on YouTube, go ahead and subscribe to the YouTube channel. So you can get all the content that I have to provide in the past and in the future. Now, if you're curious to see or read any of my reviews that are written on past films or that I'll be writing for in the future, you can head over to the site and you can find it at www.justmyopinion.net. And if you would like to find my official Facebook page, you can at facebook.com slash justmyopinion. And if you're into social media, which I'm sure you are, you can find me at Instagram and Twitter at justmyopinion84. So guys, let me know what you think in the comment section below. Give me that thumbs up, subscribe to the YouTube channel, head over to the website, find me on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter and all that good stuff. And don't forget share the video guys. I'm not going to get mad if you share the video. So guys, thank you for tuning in. And before you go, don't forget that my name is Brandon Keith Avery. And that's just my opinion. Peace.


And you'll start to see some familiar faces. That's right. That's right. How you doing? Do I have everybody in? Mac? I don't think so. That's too little. OK. Well, we had this set up for your Nomex, your new Royal Blue Nomex coveralls, flight jackets, and trousers. And I believe Shelly also has a few other items she'll give you a chance to look at. Shelly will be the engineer who's doing the exercise to make sure that we do get you into the right clothing. It was a little bit long. We used it probably not too bad. It's right there. You were deeper and deeper, or you were higher and deeper? Yeah. I've got the same comment. Mine fits up here and baggy in the hips. How could we tailor these in so they wouldn't be quite as baggy in the hips? We can take in some, because of the back zipper panel, or we have some, most of it will come out of the front. Getting out of the back seam. Really? Yeah. They look a little baggier than the suits I'm used to seeing. I don't know whether that's going to double up and bother you underneath a G-suit or not. But they can take them in if you don't want to. And the plan on these we're going to use these in T-38 bag also. Yeah. We have all these. Let's see what they do to our sleeve length. Okay. Is that better? The T-38. Very on them. Okay. He likes it. And I can also tailor it for you. You know, we have this one. We're going to have to stop here. It's not good here. Well, we can pull the pocket. We can easily pull that pocket off. Okay. Pull the pocket off and then the pocket back. When I get the crotch to the waist, the dimensions too big and all of them. I don't want to take the crotch length out at all. Yeah. Take it too tight. Anything else? Make a note on his what you want to do. Okay. Okay, great. Do you want two down or do you want one? Okay. Well, let's see. And we're going to fly. Fly. You can fly T-38s, STAs, all that stuff and use things if you want to. You also have the option. Tell you what. What's the least hazardous? If I get one done first and see how it fits, then is it easy enough to do the sexual action? Yeah. Yes. We'll have information on how to do the first one. Because if the first model you're going to see doesn't work, then why don't you do it that way? Oh, I was just saying they might not look quite as long with a boot. You know, it might not fit quite as long, but I think even if I need an inch out of there, we'll see your boots go in and heal them. I think it will be long. We'll rub it down. The boots that I'm talking about, they were my plate boots that I fly with. Those are the ones that I'm concerned about. We're going to wear these all the time. They land T-38s. That's the fit that I want to wear. T-38 right here on the sleeve. Okay, that's T-38. Okay, let's show the one that we're going to modify for you. I'm going to say it. That one off the rack. And that on you. Okay. Good one on you. Okay. We can take them up. They're not real bad. We can take them up like a half inch. Sleezer. Okay. What about your leg? That's great. No. Everybody else is one of them. You're good. Well, that's cozy. How's that? Yeah. It's real. I mean, I can get it. Okay. I'll be able to leave my leg as long as you can help. The crotch line's okay. The shoulders. Yeah. Fine. Okay. Great. You can have as many pairs as you want them. Good. Take a dozen. Yeah. Pull the elbow loose. Down and then take it to the top of the pocket. You need to come down to this. You can put some small on the next one. You believe that? No. But you can do the waist. Yeah. Substantial. But the edge of the body just weighs you a little bit. Yeah. Well, the box has to stay in the bottom of the hole. You got more than that here? Yeah. You're going to get more. Yeah. Yeah. I think the jacket's hard to get to. It's got hand warmers behind it. Okay. We'll pull another pair to try it. The actual pairs that we're going to modify. Here. Here. That's one pair? Yeah. Okay. I'll just go ahead and put these on. I want you to go ahead and put these on, and we will modify that pair for you. Okay. Great. Do you want them in here? Yes. Do you want anything in here? Just from the waist down. Just lay them on the table. Just lay them on the table. I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to. I don't want to. Okay. All right. All right. I'll take your grab. Take the bag. Think about how much of Alcorio I had to gain. I had all this extra Alcorio on here. That's all we need from the side. Okay. What about the inside of the leg? It's not a problem in there. Just a regular guy. No. I think that's okay on him. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. All right. All right. Okay. The regular guy who just wants a regular pair of cover-ups. Okay. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. Nothing. and run some tape across the top of them to keep them straight, and then get the RTV off the top of this finger. Just kind of raise your hand up a little bit. Okay, just kind of lay your hand down in it there. What to use with three molds is this one they use for the finger length. That's why we need to get a good, you know, finger trot area. The first one we for it, they're mostly interested in this area right here for your thumb crotch. And the next mold, this one, is a use for the circumference. And this one too, we have to make sure that you kind of keep your finger spread out when you're... How's that different than the first one? The first one you had it laid in that pedestal, so it makes your thumb and your thumb crotch prominent. This is one of the areas where they have problems with thumbs, right? I'm with them gloves right in through here, getting full.  I'll take them out of the boxes and take them apart and see what they look like. Re-vasilate them and put them back together and pour some molds. When you come in Thursday, I'll be able to show you what they look like. First time you've seen them. Thank you. What do you say? Yeah, we've made our end of the month. How did you order it, man? Just go right on top. Yeah, great. Okay. Nice. Socks. Socks are... No, there's two socks. There's no socks. Not for bad. For T-shirts, does M.B. be there? Yes. That's fair. Change those. We're all meeting them. If you want to make any changes, just let us know. Which is the sleep shirt? Dark blue. That's common language taken. All right. I've got larger. I'm not sure what... They do. I would suggest for comfort. Yeah. Try one out. I've got large. All of these particular shirts that you got ordered was large. Okay. Except it says medium. Okay. We're going to carry the cover. That's fine. Well, yeah, Rick... These are men. This is what we'd wear off if we decided to... to dock our sizes in a bed deck. Yeah, what I hope we'd do is just... the extra-large... I don't know why we need to... have those stowed. Okay. I mean, they can carry those on board. Yeah, they could do that. That's the only need for dark blues. Oh, the dark blues. I was thinking the light blues. They're optional. Well, let's talk about that. For getting off, we talked about taking our suits off and putting on just coveralls. I don't see any reason to stow on board a suit for that. In other words, the... One other thing that we need to think about on that regard, and that's if we have a towel for what we're going to want off. Yeah, but I wouldn't stow something for it to... I mean, we've got a variety of clothing that we can pick from. That's true. I don't see why. Okay. I just... The consideration and... Dark blue goes better. That's right. I had these. Okay, so it was... In there, you'll find a launch and entry coverall listed, and at least from that perspective, I don't see why we need to carry them. Okay, I think that's why it's because in addition, you're going to have the thermal expedition undergarments stowed in your trays. Okay? That's right. And that will take up quite a bit of room, uh-huh. That's the second set for entry. Uh-huh. Uh-huh. Okay. Did you find a... Are you going to take some? Are you going to take some? Okay, I'll just... One, two... I'll just put a check to... Something that indicates here, so I'll get the genium in. Prescriptions and... To make sure it is which one. And sizes. Yeah. You're going to try to find one. Okay. That size is too much. Uh-huh. Okay. Okay. That's what I need to know about that one. Yeah. Probably nothing on this one either. What's this doing? Okay. Move it out of there. Move it out of there. I think it's just this thing on the outside. I guess I'm carrying a kind of bolted box, so I don't need anything in this one. Okay. Plus a nice thing. Put it on. Put it on. Put it up. Put it up. Put it... What's the deal on the... the UCDs as far as... We are working on smaller razors. I hope you are part of the evaluating team on this one. I'm sending over two today to Monica. Yeah, I can try them out. They're Rimmington's. It's a smaller... Rimmington and then standard size. These are right here. We've got the smaller and real contents. Is this... The smaller... That's the smaller one. The smaller one has two heads, and it's a square little box like that. Yeah. Yeah. Are you okay? Yeah. But I can't promise this will be ready for your eyes. Okay. Okay. We're working on it. Say if... Is everyone using electric razors? Okay. I will sign up for a... Yeah, just in case. Twin blade and some shaving gel as a backup for anyone who doesn't work. Yeah. It seems like my fail last time. First day. Twin blade. Is this okay? That's great.  Can we get a straight razor? Yeah, we got one. No, one of these, you know, we just strapped it. And that's for historic purposes. This? Yeah. This is what I had when I was... I was 16 or 17. It does magic. I put zeros in here, but there's none in this section that I want to take. Okay. That way, we have information. Okay. I'll enter it all. Same here. This is the electronic... Sure. Both Noroko and her... Not going to write. This is going to work great. Noroko. Use this one. Oh yeah. I've got a set of special tips, things I have and other things. I mean, like I said, I've got one of them. I've got one of them. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. They're all four. Four points. One of those. So many cars every start.