Alrighty, I have a construction update for you guys today and honestly, I'm really excited. It's inside the park. So as you can see there, there is a straight away of orange markings. That is going to be the launch for the coaster. And what you're about to see is right where those orange, the red flags are, I'm going to get you a better angle very shortly for you guys, is the actual stations. You'll be able to see exactly where the station is and the launch based off of the markings here. Again, this takes up a lot more space than even we were kind of, I guess, like understanding based off of the, what do you call them, the animation looks like a small footprint, but it is a lot larger than it, than you can kind of see in the animation. But as you see that little square, that's going to be where the station is. For those of you that don't know, but when they start a coaster, they like to start the, the digging out there to put the electrical and all that, the gas lines that they needed, electrical water, all that kind of jazz in for the station. So you can see all that work taking place already. And then they got the straight away with the orange markings and the, they've definitely leveled the land a lot more than it used to be and removed a lot of the debris, but they're still a lot more leveling to go. Unless they're actually going to let this coaster kind of go with the terrain. That'd be kind of cool because it does look like they might be done so far with leveling, which means it is going to kind of hug some of the terrain if this is the case. So that's going to be really cool. So I wanted to stress that, but as you can see, there's markings galore everywhere and there's also markings on the other side as well. So we're not sure if that's going to be for a 2024 kind of like little kids expansion as well, probably nothing significant, just a flat ride. Again, Wonderland is super predictable now in terms of me. I like, I know exactly what Wonderland's going to do based off of their additions. So I already got a really good understanding on 2024 additions. With that being said, they're moving pretty quickly now. Like again, if for those of you that remember the drone footage from just a week ago, even, I think, like nowhere like this. So by the end of Winterfest, like we could see footings. Now it is getting cold, really cold, really quickly. I don't know if that's an age thing, but I am not handling this weather really well at Winterfest. I'm getting really cold. I can hardly film appropriately. But yeah, nonetheless, lots of money being invested into Wonderland for next season. I'm going to show you some of the stuff now, still working on some of the other things. So a lot of you know, I had mentioned a Vortex upgrade. So I've been discussing kind of like Vortex getting some refurbishment done to it. I've got to be really careful with how I word this. I don't want to get any... Yeah, I just got to be really careful. As you're going to see, just looking at the ride, anyone can tell that something is going on. So they've done some welding. There's going to be some more cross ties by the looks of things. What they're doing added to the ride for further support. So you're going to see some of those areas where welding and repainting has occurred. It's very obvious when you look at it and zoom in where there's been some work. There is still a lot more work to go. They're going to work on. So for those of you to word it appropriately and kind of describe it to you best. At the beginning of the season, if you remember my videos, they were kind of welding Leviathan's track. Well, it's essentially what's about to happen to Vortex. Vortex is going to have a third party company come in and place kind of like metal sheets over areas that need it, and then they weld it down to match the track. So next season, you won't even be able to tell which areas were welded because it's going to weld it down completely. Leviathan had it done. You can't tell on Leviathan where it had it done at the beginning of the season. It occurs when there's hairline fractures in the track, which is normal, by the way, happens all the time. But Vortex has got a lot of them and it's going to have a lot of repair work done to it and a lot of refurbishment. But outside of that, Wonderland has scored some sort of deal on TVs because there are TVs everywhere now, seating, dining areas, rides have multiple. They're all working now, too, which is crazy because in the summer they weren't working. So I don't know where Wonderland somehow been able to fix them. Well, they have these new TVs and it looks like even the flip counter will be working next season because they've been doing some work on the TV specific to the flip counter on Skyhawk. And yeah, so they're going to have ride wait times as well. And all the ride supervisors will have iPads that can control the ride wait time. So that'll be really cool to see. So lots of really cool investments coming into Canada's Wonderland. That's only a few. I can't talk about some things yet because I have to release them at a very specific timing. Yeah, so stay tuned because Wonderland has got a lot of money coming into it. It's a good time to invest. The Canadian dollar is really low and the American dollar being invested into Canada saves them about 40 percent on investment. So says a lot. Anyway, stay tuned, guys. Hopefully everyone's having a great winter fest. Thanks for watching. Bye.


Most people see skepticism of modern higher mathematics as kind of laughable. It's silly, couldn't possibly be any truth to it. And though people are very tolerant of entertaining skepticism and other disciplines, skepticism of math just seems too radical, too crazy, too illogical, and certainly I'm up to some funny business. I think this actually comes from a poor quality mathematics education, at least in the West. Poor quality because math students tend to believe the very first thing that they are taught without question and never think in any other way. They think the very first thing they were taught is certainly true and proven by some really smart people in the past. There's no alternative ways of thinking about it, and so they go on never realizing that in fact there's a very rich and controversial history in higher mathematics that leads to our present state. So if you've been listening to my work and maybe you like some of the political stuff, or maybe you like some of the stuff on the metaphysics of mind, but you really think I'm off base with the math, this video is made for you. What I'm going to do is present a history of mathematics that you simply don't get in high school, you don't get in college. I would venture to say the vast majority of PhD mathematicians don't actually understand what I'm going to tell you because they've never been taught it so they think the history simply doesn't exist. They're unaware of just how much room there is for skepticism, especially about the fundamentals of mathematics. So that might sound enticing to you, I hope it does, and what I'm going to do is break it into really two parts. There's no possible way I could do this subject justice. It's fascinating. I've been studying it for several years now. There's not one really good resource on this. This is a lot of knowledge from a lot of different areas of information. Eventually I of course will write significantly about this and synthesize it. But this I'm going to try to say is the context you need in order to have any sophisticated and reasonable opinion about the foundations of modern mathematics. So you can break the history of mathematics I think into two parts. You've got from let's say recorded history up until about let's say the 1870s, give or take. And then from the 1870s to like the 1850s you had a gigantic foundational crisis at the heart of modern mathematics, how that resolved brings us into the modern era. All of which is very, very interesting. So we'll talk about those different parts. Pre-1870s, 1880s, and then the crazy transition period and then our present state. So prior to modern history, mathematics was not built on top of you could call arithmetic or numbers. Numbers were not necessarily seen as fundamental. What was seen as fundamental was geometry, in particular Euclidean geometry. So the math that you think of when you're just thinking about like elementary math. Most mathematicians and most people would have been taught various mathematical principles that grew out of Euclidean geometry. There's a really, really good and interesting reason for that. The Greeks thought that geometry was more fundamental than numerical mathematics for a fascinating reason. So everybody's familiar with the Pythagorean theorem. A squared plus B squared equals C squared. The Greeks said, okay, well take a triangle that has the length of one unit, has the height of one unit. And then you have the hypotenuse. What is the length of the hypotenuse of that triangle? Well, if it's A squared plus B squared equals C squared, that's one squared, which is one, plus one squared, which is one. So that gives you two equals C squared. So that would mean the length of the hypotenuse is the square root of two. Well, what exactly is the square root of two? It's not something you can actually write out. You can't get to the square root of two by writing, you know, little squiggles. By writing numbers. It's something according to the story that has infinite decimal expansion. The Greeks didn't like this. I don't like it either. However, you could actually get the concept of the square root of two in Euclidean geometry. There's a really cool way with just a ruler and a compass that you can come up with the value, the length of the square root of two, but you can't put it into numbers. So the Greeks said, ah, this must mean that geometry is in a sense more precise. It's more fundamental. We can demonstrate with perfect precision. That is the square root of two, but we can't put it into numbers. Fascinating. Very smart. It should also be mentioned that Euclidean geometry was an axiomatic deductive system of mathematics, meaning it articulates a certain set of axioms which Euclid thought were self-evident, and many of them are self-evident or appear to be self-evident, and then it uses logical deduction to build more advanced structures of knowledge on top of those axioms. This is very important as we'll get to later. So for roughly 2,000 years, Euclidean geometry was the foundation of mathematics, essentially. Roughly speaking, it was the foundation of higher mathematics. It was seen as something that was perfect. In fact, mathematics education was synonymous with, for a long time, learning Euclidean geometry, at least getting your basics in Euclidean geometry. So that was considered the foundations of mathematics. Unshakable foundations of mathematics. And then what happened? Well, in the late 1800s, there was some mathematicians, some radicals, who actually doubted the universality of one of the axioms of Euclidean geometry. It's called the parallel postulate. The details are not relevant. But essentially they said, hmm, actually I think you could build an alternative coherent logical mathematical geometric structure and actually doubt this axiom. And if you do, you get all these other odd conclusions. And the mathematics profession at the time said, ah, utterly preposterous, impossible. There's no conceivable way that you can doubt Euclidean geometry. Any of these axioms, you guys are crazy. But they kept working on it. And they kept working on it. And sure enough, they were developing coherent alternative systems. You could call them non-Euclidean geometric systems. It's a bit of a misnomer because even the Greeks had things like spherical geometry, which is technically Euclidean. But it was a very big deal. So not only was it a big deal in geometry. Oh wow, we have Euclidean geometry and non-Euclidean geometry. No, this in fact cut to the very heart of the foundations of mathematics because if it's possible that we'd be assumed to be certainly true and certainly rigorous, could coherently and reasonably be doubted what actually is the foundation of mathematics. Why do we think anything is true? Does that mean 2 plus 2 might not actually equal 4? Could we go that far? The answer is no, you can't actually go that far. Anyway, so we had around this time the work of a German mathematician named Georg Cantor, who I'll talk quite a bit about. One of the most influential mathematicians ever, unfortunately.  He had mental health issues. He died in an asylum. There's a phrase that if you want to make somebody crazy, have them think about infinity for too long. If you keep meditating on infinity, eventually you'll lose your mind. And that's probably started, I don't actually know the history of this, but it probably started around the time of Georg Cantor because he had quite a few crazy mathematicians who had these supposedly amazing discoveries with regards to infinity. But I'm getting ahead of myself. So, we now have let's say from the period of 1880 to about 1950 a foundational crisis in mathematics. What does it mean to say that some mathematical formula is true? Does mathematics tell you anything about the world? Does mathematics tell you the truth? Is mathematics just kind of us playing a game? There were different approaches to these questions, fundamentally different approaches. So as I said, around this time you have the German mathematician Georg Cantor working away and what is he working on? Well, among other things he's working on set theory. What is set theory? Well, it is as it sounds. It's about sets, sets of numbers. What was revolutionary and unique and dubious about Georg Cantor's work is that he came up with the theory of the transfinite set, the infinite set. So when we think of a set of objects, there's a set of all the grains of sand in the world. There's a very large set, all the little pebbles and grains of sand in the world, a very large set. Cantor was talking about infinite sets, infinite sets of numbers. So if you think about supposedly the natural numbers, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten and so on. Supposedly these numbers go on forever. There's no largest number out there that you reach. And Cantor was talking about all of those numbers put together, taken as one. Can you do that? I and many others have said no, but Cantor said yes. And he said, in fact, not only is there an infinite set, there's an infinite number of sizes of infinite sets. You can have smaller infinities and bigger infinities. Wow, remarkable. So you can get something like the set of all the real numbers between zero and one is a larger infinity than the set of all the natural numbers, one, two, three, four, five and so on. Yes, there are more real numbers between zero and one than there are a regular old infinity. If that sounds remarkable, that's because it is. And in fact, at the time, it was mocked roundly, which I'll talk about in a bit. So why is this important? It's important because modern mathematics is built on top of set theory. The modern state of mathematics is not built on Cantorian set theory, which was shown to have some paradoxes in it. It is built on what's called Zermelo-Frankel set theory, which again I'll talk about later. So it would be impossible to overestimate the influence of Mr. Georg Cantor here and his sets. So during this time of mathematical upheaval that had never happened before, you had, roughly speaking, three schools of thought about the foundations of mathematics. Where is it that mathematical truth comes from? Is there such a thing as mathematical truth? What do we base our mathematics on? What is mathematics? What is it telling you about? When I say 2 plus 2 equals 4, what is it that I'm actually saying? Am I saying take the number 2, combine it with the number 2 when you get the number 4? Am I saying 2 of something and 2 of something together will give you 4 of something? What is the meaning in mathematics? So with three general schools you could talk about. One school was the logisist school. People like Bertrand Russell, Gottlieb Frege, and Alfred North Whitehead are the best known logisists. You had the school of constructivism, which you could also later call intuitionism. Constructivism, I'll talk about in more detail, but some of the prominent people were people like Chroniker, L.E.J. Brower, Henry Poincaré, these were mathematicians, took a radically different approach than the logisists. And then you had the formalists. The formalists headed by David Hilbert, one of the most influential modern mathematicians or maybe the most influential modern mathematician. And each of these three schools took radically different approaches and got radically different structures of knowledge based on their kind of philosophic understanding of the foundations of mathematics. And let me explain. So let's start. Well, I'll give you some of the pros and cons, because if you find this information out there, usually you won't find this information in mathematics textbooks. You have to look in either the history of mathematics or in the philosophy of mathematics. And in the history of mathematics, they don't give you opinion or analysis. They just give you historical facts. They don't say this was right and this was wrong. They don't say that in the philosophy of mathematics. But let me give you the overview of the positions and my analysis of them, which will demonstrate, in fact, there's room for new ways of thinking about the fundamentals of mathematics. So let's start with the logisist position, because it sounds like it's a good term. In fact, that's my favorite term, logicism. If you're familiar with my book, Square One, The Foundations of Knowledge, you know I'm rather partial to logic. The logisist said that mathematics is fundamentally an extension of logic. Why mathematics is true is because logic is true. You can build mathematical structures. Fundamentally, they reduce to the laws of logic. On this point, I agree. I think this is actually true. The trouble is, the way that the logisist went about doing this was building their theory, their logical theory, on set theory. Most famously, this happened with Gottlieb Frege, who was kind of the founder of logicism. He came up, he was in the process of publishing his big tome on logicism, grounding mathematics and logic. And he got a letter after it had been accepted and was going to be published. He got a letter from a young Bertrand Russell who pointed out that, in fact, there was a paradox in Frege's theory and it's now called Russell's paradox, which undermined the entire theory. And Frege acknowledged this and the story goes sank into a deep depression. He couldn't resolve Russell's paradox. He, I think, he wrote an addendum as the book was being released, saying, oh yeah, there's this paradox. I haven't resolved it. Well, that's the myth, at least. I don't know if that's actually, that's the story. That's literally what happened with his mental health. So Russell took up the project of logicism and he and a man named Alfred North Whitehead developed a consistent, coherent structure of mathematical knowledge. The tome that he came out with was called Prankipia Mathematica.  So needless to say, that is not a very smooth mathematical structure. An interesting thing about logicism is that the logists were explicit mathematical Platonists, meaning they thought mathematics was not about the physical world. It wasn't about, it wasn't mental goings on. It was platonic. Numbers are non-physical things, they're out there in the platonic realm and that's absolutely essential to their thinking about the world. I think this is mistaken. And this is where the next school comes in and actually gets it right. The next school is the constructivists or the intuitionists. The constructivists said, no, no, no, mathematics is not external. It doesn't tell you about the world necessarily. Mathematics is all in the mind. Mathematics, when you have a mathematical truth it's just saying that this accords with the particular structure in my mind. It is constructed. Mathematics isn't out there, outside of our minds, it's within our minds. I agree with the metaphysics of this and mathematical objects are indeed within our minds. I'm not a Platonist and I think that's absolutely essential for developing a new foundation of mathematics. But as I said, people like Kroniker were big constructivists. Brower took it even farther into intuitionism which is kind of an extreme form of constructivism which says that not only is mathematics essentially about the mind but so are the laws of logic. The law of, let's say, the excluded middle which the details of which are irrelevant. A classical Aristotelian law of logic. The law of the excluded middle. No, Brower says. It's not something that's logically certain. It's something that's simply a human convention in the center of mind. And I believe he'd go so far as the other fundamental laws of logic like the law of identity and non-contradiction that this is a kind of convention. It doesn't tell you anything about the external world which is a shame because the constructivists get the metaphysics of mathematics right but they get logic completely wrong. Logic is indeed external even though the objects of mathematics are within our mind. Now one of the benefits of constructivism is that the proponents of it were explicitly dismissive. I shouldn't say dismissive. They rejected the concept of infinite sets of infinite totalities and there's an obvious reason for this. In the case that mathematics is within the mind we cannot conceive of an infinite totality within our mind. Therefore it doesn't exist. And so they rejected and had very damning things to say about cantorian set theory and this whole idea of the infinity of infinities. I'll give you some quotes later. So to give you the two I get to contrast constructivism with logicism. The logists got logic right they got infinity wrong and they got metaphysics wrong. They were Platonists and Cantorians. The constructivists got metaphysics right mathematical objects in our minds but they got logic wrong but they got the rejection of infinities right. And the very strong condemnation of Cantor and his nonsense. And people don't realize this is not an education that people get if they're a Ph.D. in mathematics. People like Henry Poincaré for example was a French mathematician very well respected so was Kroniker and so was Brower in fact. They were mathematicians and they didn't politely disagree with set theory, with cantorian set theory. They thought it was an abomination an intellectual abomination but thinkers like Ludwig Wittgenstein who is a super famous philosopher Wittgenstein considered his greatest contribution to be in the philosophy of mathematics and he mocked set theory. So it's actually not a radical position or wouldn't have been a radical position to have very strong feelings about cantorian set theory it's only over time now that we're so many years along that skepticism about set theory the cantorian set theory and this idea of the infinite totality is seen as totally crazy there's no way you can be rational and doubt that. Okay so let me give you the third and final school an approach to the foundations of mathematics the one that ultimately you could say ended up winning. The formalists most notable of which was David Hilbert the formalists say hey look don't worry about this truth thing don't talk about don't talk about it in terms of that mathematics is simply symbolic manipulation of symbols symbolic manipulation of symbols as opposed to what according to rules and axioms that we specify so remember in Euclidean geometry the axiomatic deductive method took axioms and used logical deduction to build structures of knowledge axioms back then in Euclidean geometry meant something like a self-evident truth something that was fundamental and true the formalists take the axiomatic approach but they don't worry about the truth of the axioms they just say you can explicitly state your axioms and your rules and rules from manipulation of symbols and then build your structures of knowledge and that's it you don't need any of the philosophizing on top of that now this believe it or not wound up winning and is massively influential the current as I said before the current foundation of mathematics probably speaking axiomatic foundation of mathematics is called Zermalo-Frankl set theory or sometimes ZFC set theory it's a set of explicit axioms that you are supposed to or that you can use to justify your mathematics the axioms were specifically designed to get around Russell's paradox so this is where we find ourselves but it just so happens that the axioms themselves because they make no attempt at being true can coherently and reasonably be doubted namely one of the explicit axioms in ZFC set theory is the so-called axiom of infinity which says at least one infinite set exists namely the set of the natural numbers the reason that that is taken as an axiom is it can't be proven you can't prove the existence of the infinite set so you have to assert it as a given it's not something you're seeing whether or not it's true or false you're just taking it as an axiom of your system this is not exaggeration folks if you've ever heard this before that might sound preposterous or at least open to doubt like maybe that's not the best way of building structures of knowledge especially when you can't prove something and so you take it as an axiom of the foundation of your theory so that gives you an overview and my commentary on formalism is that I don't see much merit in it I'm interested in truth I don't really care about empty formalisms ironically one of the spectacular benefits of formalism is that if you are a mathematician it enables you to do quite a lot of work you now have license to essentially create any old arbitrary structure you like regardless if it's true or not and make a little paper about it and publish it and look real smart you're not letting your symbols according to the rules that you specify so if you're an academic not interested in truth but interested in publishing words on paper formalism is just brilliant it's a license to write whatever the heck you want to write so one more thing on that is there's this idea of rigor in mathematics when you talk about mathematical rigor virtually everybody thinks oh well it's unquestionable unfortunately that's not the case especially not anymore mathematicians, bottom mathematicians are concerned with validity they're concerned with whether or not the conclusions that you state follow from the premises that you've stated they're not concerned with whether the premises that you've stated are true so when somebody says this is mathematically proven or this is mathematically rigorous that doesn't necessarily have any persuasive power because that might just mean according to a certain set of flawed premises okay so with the success of formalism, Bertrand Russell who kind of eventually gave up his project of logicism came up with a brilliant quip to describe the state of formalist mathematics he says quote mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we're talking about nor wither what we're saying is true it's brilliant and it's tongue in cheek and what he's saying is well we don't know what we're talking about meaning your mathematics isn't about truth it's not about the corresponding of your symbols to things in the world it's just symbols just symbols with no explicitly no meaning behind them they have explicitly taken meaning out of the equation because that suddenly brings you into the realm of philosophy so believe it or not there is in fact room for new foundations of mathematics here if you disagree with the logists the formalists the constructivists well there's a lot more to say about it but I'm still in the process of research to really get all of my ducks in a row to give you my educated thoughts on this topic so believe it or not constructivists well if you disagree for philosophic reasons you can coherently build different structures of mathematical knowledge something that most people consider impossible because they're ignorant on the subject I don't mean ignorant in a pejorative way I mean that in a literal sense people simply aren't taught this information and so they don't understand the context for repeating the beliefs that they think are certainly true what they think mathematics is but they don't have the knowledge to actually put that in context and know what they're talking about so I do, before I end this I'm going to give you some interesting quotes not from me about my crazy and heretical ideas in mathematics but from mathematicians especially around the time of this crisis in mathematics if it was perfectly reasonable then accomplished intellectuals to be skeptical of the claims of Kantorian set theory then it is perfectly reasonable for us to do so now especially when their criticisms were not satisfactorily responded to so this is what Leopold Kroniker said about Kantor's set theory quote, I don't know what predominates in Kantor's theory philosophy or theology but I am sure there was no mathematics there part of the reason for Kroniker saying this is because Kantor who I said before I think had mental issues was devoutly religious and he claimed in his proofs there is the first size of infinity another size of infinity an infinite number of sizes of infinity and then at the end you had the absolute infinity the infinity which no greater infinity could be conceived absolute infinity he called God he said that's what God is and he also claimed that God the absolute infinity spoke to him directly and told him the truths about his Kantorian set theory maybe it's true I'm not saying that can't happen but it should be a red flag this is a quote from Carl Gauss who was another massively influential mathematician he says infinity is nothing more than a figure of speech which helps us talk about limits the notion of a completed infinity does not belong in mathematics oh my gosh the heresy can you imagine Gauss said this David Hilbert by contrast the founder of formalism says that no one shall drive us from the paradise that Kantor has created from us to which the philosopher Wittgenstein responded well if one person can see it as a paradise of mathematicians why should another not see it as a joke Herman Weill wrote classical logic was abstracted from the mathematics of finite sets and their subsets forgetful of this limited origin one afterwards mistook that logic for something above and prior to all mathematics and finally applied it without justification to the mathematics of infinite sets this is the fall and original sin of Kantor's set theory so those are quotes from prestigious well-respected mathematicians who were deeply skeptical of Kantorian set theory I want to give a funny story as well on the history of mathematics that had to do with Isaac Newton Hume and the philosopher George Barclay and this actually took place a little bit before the fundamental crisis in mathematics but it was also about infinities in particular infinitesimals so Newton is known for being one of the co-discoverers of calculus but in his theory he had this concept of fluctuations and what was a fluctuation well you could think of it as an infinitesimal it was a dubious logical concept that he came up with to try to make the math work to give you practical consequences in in his theory of calculus the philosopher George Barclay had scathing and hysterical things to say and in fact wrote a book I think called The Analyst if I'm not mistaken where he essentially mocks mathematicians for their poor logical reasoning and he's a Bishop Barclay as a priest and he says well it takes far less faith to believe in God than it does the mathematicians Hume, David Hume also was very skeptical of the concept of infinite divisibility for good reason so I just want to give you a quote from an article from Dr. James Franklin who's a mathematician talking about Hume's conception of infinitesimals and a little bit of the history here which you might find interesting he says quote, Hume can claim something of the same success he had in the matter of infinitesimals Barclay said that the mathematicians use of infinitesimals was contradictory and that they regarded infinitesimals as non-zero when it suited them and zero when it suited them which is true the mathematicians ignored Barclay as one ignorant of the subtleties of their art until they solved the problem by eliminating infinitesimals in favor of multiple quantification at which point they said Barclay was right which demonstrates the excellence of our new answer Hume then repeats himself a number of times as usual compares mathematicians to papists and so on but adds no new argument of substance interestingly he does consider the strictly mathematical question of whether it is possible to develop the science of geometry without assuming infinite divisibility how about that David Hume's No Shlup I will say this issue of infinity really gets at the heart of mathematics it gets at the heart of what's called the continuum or what's considered the continuum which is if you think about a number line as we've been taught you've got zero here you've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven in between zero and one you have point five in between zero and point five you have point two five unfortunately this is infinitely divisible so between any two numbers there is a third number this is you can think of the continuum it's where modern mathematicians think numbers come from, it comes from the continuum there's not a finite set of numbers out there to work with but unfortunately there's not been a lot of very rigorous ways of thinking about the continuum in a non-plotonic way you can have the generation of as many numbers as you need without appealing to actualized infinities or platonic mathematics this is what my work is doing it's what I'll be doing over the long run have a long ways to go but in fact there's a perfectly reasonable intuitive, logically rigorous method for preserving finitism and yet giving you as many numbers as you need it would also be hard to overestimate just how fundamental this concept of infinities within infinities and infinite cesses in modern mathematics in topology for example it's essential in real analysis it's essential or the story goes modern mathematics takes as biblical truth the idea that you can have an infinite totality nested within an infinite totality no problem so when people hear that there's reasonable skepticism about these ideas, their jaws drop their eyes wide and they think you're crazy because they don't know what the heck they're talking about and they don't understand the history of the subject matter geometry is another great one I had a little series on my youtube channel about investigating the fundamentals of geometry most people throughout history have taken for granted the supposed infinite divisibility of space, space is a continuum I reject that idea I think that space fundamentally is discreet you still can preserve a bunch of beautiful mathematics you don't need infinities you just need a different way of thinking about it so I hope that you guys have found that history lesson interesting the process of finding this information out has been a blast for me it has been like going on a murder mystery many years ago I found the story about infinity uncompelling and there's all kinds of trouble trying to resolve zeno's paradoxes with calculus which you can't do which I've explained before it comes up all the time an infinite causal regress is there a prime mover, is there not questions about infinity are absolutely fundamental and poorly, poorly resolved and so I've been on this journey for many years figuring out where did these terrible ideas come from where did these terrible ideas come from where did these terrible ideas come from and sure enough many of them if not most of them are rooted in mistakes in reasoning about the foundations of mathematics from about 1870 to about 1950 with gigantic implications and it's weird to come to that conclusion because prior to the investigation I thought just like you probably did that there's no room for skepticism in mathematics it's all logically wrigglers and certain really smart people who have figured this shit out but in fact they haven't they've done a poor job and there's lots of room for new foundations here somebody working on alternative structures of mathematics is Norman Weilberger who I've interviewed on Patterson to Pursuit I highly recommend his work even though I disagree with his metaphysics of mathematics he's still rejecting this nonsensical notion of the completed infinity and exploring the implications of that so I'd highly recommend it believe it or not there really truly is room for rational skepticism about modern mathematics


I'm here with Bob Rubino, who's the director of the F-35 program here in Washington, DC.  I flew F-18s in the Navy a long time ago. Well, something they probably didn't have back in your day is this piece of equipment right here. Can you tell me what we're looking at? This helmet isn't anything close to what I ever flew it. It is cool. This thing has the ability to take all of the world around it and put it on the pilot's visor, and that gives the pilot the ability to look through the aircraft. Sir, that sounds awesome. Do you mind if I try it on? All yours. All right. So now you have the real helmet that pilots are flying today on the F-35, and you can see what it looks like and what they see. You have real footage of the world around you in the infrared spectrum that gives you the ability to turn night into day. And if I were to look down, I can basically see right through the airplane as if it's kind of like X-ray vision. That's exactly right. All right, sir. If you don't mind, I'd like to go over to the F-35 demonstrator and give that a try. Let's go do it and show everybody how easy this airplane is to fly. All right. All right, sir. So here we are inside the demonstrator. What can you tell me about the screen? Well, so welcome to the most advanced cockpit ever designed for a fighter aircraft. And you can see this is a little bit different probably than other fighter aircraft that you've seen before. You have two touch screens. What I like to say, they're almost like two iPads that you have with you here. The other neat thing about this cockpit is its voice activated, so you almost have like a Siri working for you. Well, what exactly are we looking at here on this screen? It looks like a tower on the ground. Your job is to take out the control power of the enemy airfield. As you can see, it's shown up as a target here. All right, well, I'm ready to put some warheads on four heads right now, sir. Well, I think it says in range, and I like your mentality. So feel free to push the pickle button. You'll see the internal weapon bay door open up. There goes the doors. Door is open. Bombs away. Feel free to drop a second one if you really like to. There's the first bomb hitting. Impact, well done. As you're coming off the target, the guys you just bombed, there were some guys that did survive and are now radioed to the fighter aircraft that were in the area. That there's somebody out here, so they're starting to look for you. And there's a couple of bad guy airplanes that you need to go take out. Now, the beauty about the F-35 that the Marine Corps is going to love, it's just going to give you the ability of having what we like to call first look, first shot, and first kill. That's what stealth brings to the pilot. All right, sir. Well, it looks like mission complete. So thank you for showing me the Corps' newest aviation technology. It's lethal. It's survivable. You're able to execute the mission and come back and land on the L-class carrier in a very simple and easy way. Well done. The F-35's advanced aviation technology and stealth capabilities make it the best fighter jet in the sky. Thanks for watching, guys. We'll see you on the next episode of With the Gear.


I am not, Dennis Wall, I am not your financial advisor. I'm just some guy in a pool room talking about crypto and sweat coins. Bobby, voyage or crash next? I gotta tell you, it concerns me, but what I've been really concerning is if I wouldn't have heard about that loan from Alameda Research. If that Alameda Research loan wasn't coming through, there'd be some stuff. And I even reached out to Steve, I go, hey man, you know, you're always welcome to show. You can come on anytime and just talk about it. I go, I'm pretty sure legal won't let you come on. But if you want to, you know, talk to everybody. And he's like, well, I can't right now. I was like, no kidding. So that's what, that's it. Echoes from above? Where'd he go? Damn it, everybody, there he is. Echoes from above, follow his channel, great stuff as far as just the basic, what's going on in the traditional world, the macro events. It's interesting just to keep up. There's so many things on there. So, you know, don't just listen to me because I can be totally wrong. That's just the truth.  Could you do a deep dive on cadena? I really should. That's a good point. Deep random thinker, let me write that down. Has anybody seen my pen? I'll just remember it. All right, John Blaskis, one roller blades, one skateboard, one just new shoes.  Maybe he works in the Amazon factories, but he crushes me every month and it takes me off. So there's gonna be a two-in-how process. So if you win twice in a row, which crypto-autistic is probably gonna win this month, sorry, then you can only win twice. That'll give other people with normal walking abilities the chance to win. That's a good question. Jung, Jung Chau, Jaegung Chau. Do you feel England removing KYC requirements, which is, I think, is huge on wallets? Because remember, not too long ago, they were trying to do KYC for all wallets everywhere. So your metamask wallet, you have to do KYC and AML. And that means that that wallet will be tied to you and they can track you whatever you do. And then they said, eh, maybe not. Is due to the influence by tether, tether backed by pound sound sketchy and probably won't touch it still. My opinion is this. I think there was a lot of outcry from a lot of different people and they buckled, which was actually good. However, that's just me and my naive way of thinking. Maybe behind, see, there's a thing. We'll never know what goes on behind the scenes. Politicians and people in power and the people that pay those people in power we'll never know.  Who knows, don't sue me. That's just what I think. Christopher, my only friend. Regulations are needed for guidance and we'll bring in the big money we need it. I will tell you this, he's right. And the second thing is they will bring in big money, but the third thing is that all these VCs and these institutional investors, they're gonna bring in a lot of money into the space, but guess what they like to do? Take it right back out. So we love them when they give us all the money, but we hate them when they take it out. But guess what, they do that all the time because they understand the natural cycles and they know about this thing, which called, let me get this out of here, take profits, which is right there, take profits. That last thing, don't forget to do that. They do that all the time, why shouldn't you do that? I know what you're probably thinking, oh, but if I take the profits this one time, that's when Bitcoin goes to a million billion dollars. It doesn't work like that. I mean, I thought I missed the boat when Bitcoin hit 19,000 in 2017. And guess what, it was just 17,000 a week ago, or not even, this is the last weekend. Yeah, Jennifer, I've been following you for years and it's a child. I don't know what that is, must be, I don't know. Let's see. I don't know if that's good or anything. I'm just not cool, I don't know what it is. Let's see. Russia is also producing an alternative to Swift. Swift, if you don't know, that's the messaging service which allows us to fund all these different accounts and transfer money from one bank in America to another bank, or actually all banks, they use the Swift system. It's an archaic system, was created in 1963, I think, in Zurich, I can't remember. And that's what they've been using for the whole time. It's amazing. That is the technology that the banks run on. And of course, Russia doesn't like that because of sanctions, so they're gonna develop their own. I can totally see that. I always thought they would go bigger into crypto. Well, it made sense to me for a while. Mike says, sell or hold Voyager, are you talking with the stock or are you talking about the crypto? So if you're talking about the stock, go follow. That goes from above, because he just talked about that today. But for the crypto itself, the VGX token, like, I like the fact that I'm in that high tier and I'll never sell that. Even if the thing goes under, it goes under, it goes under. And I just, because the Voyager loyalty program, it just makes sense for me to stick it there. I could sell it all the way, but I won't. And that's just probably me being a little stubborn. But also, I will tell you this, I'm not keeping more than 5% on that, on the Voyager exchange. We have rules. I like the people. We are friendly. We are friends. But we are not married. And I'm just here to make a profit. So if it's between the family and my friends, guess what? I have to do what's best for me. And that's me. And you can do whatever you want to do. Rob, can you say another interview with Alex Machinsky? Yeah, right. That guy's incognito. However, if you haven't heard the person that's doing the restructuring plan, Simon Dixon from Bank of the Future, one of the Bitcoin OGs, big investor into Coinbase and Kraken, Gemini and Goodifinex and all these different places, Ethereum, and was buying Bitcoin in 2010 for Pete Sakes. He is responsible for getting together this plan. He's gonna be on the show either Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday next week. We're trying to iron that out exclusively. So I gotta love that. So let's hear what he has to say. I can tell you right now, I know he's got insider information or some great information that would probably behoove you to know. Rob went lower low. I have no clue. That's for the TA people. That is not me. Go watch Ben from In The Cryptiverse or James from Best Answers or The Chart Guys. Seemed to be pretty good. Ah. Huh? Alex from Above says, I gotta be honest. I think Steve's a bad CEO. Managed to be bad. Greed or disagree? I think Steve's a pretty decent CEO, a pretty good one, especially with E-Trade. I could be wrong. But I will tell you this, one thing within they didn't do that I know of right now. They didn't get into DeFi and put in an anchor protocol and Luna, UST and all that stuff. And it is interesting though that you gotta take a look at who's getting bailed out, not bailed out. What's the word? The different institutions that are receiving the loans from powerful people, such as Alameda Research and FTX, BlockFi and Voyager and some other ones. So, just be aware of that. See though, so here's the thing. Joshua says, if Voyager goes under FML, you can correct this. Voyager, did you, you paid them fees for the crypto that you bought, right? Well, you don't have to keep your crypto on there. So if it goes under, it's irrelevant. Unless you have stock, stock is stock. I never invested in the Voyager stock. I'm not a big stock person. But if you think that, hey, you know what, this might go under. This is your opportunity to say, you know what, I wanna take some crypto off. And of course, some of that crypto cannot be taken off of the Voyager exchange. And maybe you have to sell that and put it into some other crypto and then take it off. That's it. Throw something in the pool. It's a green screen. Come on. Come on. TND, welcome. You're never late to the party, Tesla. Don't ban us. Oh, this is a great question. Poopster, which is a great name. Rob, would you provide liquidity? Let me stop this banner. Would you provide liquidity per split token? Would you buy it? I'm having a hard time understanding where profits, where profits? I understand where profits come from for this project. Seems like it'll be dead in six months. It's fair observation. That's why I'm doing the deep dive very soon. So here's the thing. With sweat token, you have to understand that app's been around for three years and it was already free to download. It's been the number one app in 66 different countries, US being one of them. It only took seven days to reach one million crypto wallets when they put it out. And of course, if you want to take a look at Steppen, that took much more time. And then Neoprotocol and Ethereum and all those things, it took a lot longer to get those crypto wallets up. So a million wallets is pretty good. Here's the revenue generation. First of all, when you're on the app itself and you'll see it when you download it, there's advertisements. And also Reebok and Nike and let's see how the big ones, Dollar Shave Club and some other stuff, they put their items on there and you can pay for those with sweat token or have a discount. They also have digital type of apps that you can purchase with the sweat token. So advertising, I don't know if you know this, but that's where the revenue from this channel comes from on YouTube. Just advertising on big brands. That's what YouTube makes their money, advertising. That's just one part. Second one is the premium service, if you want it. It's like 25 bucks a year, sure. Also, they're gonna have not just the beginning, but probably in Q4, crypto to crypto trading on the app. Then it's gonna be a fiat on ramp. Then they're gonna have an NFT marketplace. Then they're gonna have business to consumer incentives, which allow like big institutions to incentivize physical activity of the users if they wanna opt in. And then also, I don't know if you knew this, but they're trying, they don't sell your data like Facebook did, but if you wanted to, I don't know, take the data of the thing that you have there and you wanna sell it to, I don't know, your health insurance company because they have some kind of program which gives you a discount on your premiums, you're allowed to do that based on, and the Dow, which they're going to integrate in Q4. We'll have those things. So there's actually seven different areas of how they generate revenue. Now, could this project go to zero? Yes, it could go to zero. Who knows? What I gotta tell you so far, it's pretty simple to use and I can see where things are going. Hopefully answer that question. All right, I'm telling you, it's a green screen. Let's see. Ah, Chazik tea, you cool kids. I cannot keep up with you. Hmm, Tammy, hey Rob, I love your channel when they roll out CBDCs, how will we be able to buy crypto? Unfortunately, the digital yuan, CBDC in China, you won't be able to do it like that. CBDCs in Europe or EU in the United States, we'll see how they rule those out. I think the big thing is how much privacy are they going to put into.  The former head of the CFTC or was the OCC, Jean Carlo, crypto dad, he was talking about the digital dollar and he says, look, there's two ways to do it. Straight observation and communism, just like China essentially, where they have a social score and if you fall too low, then of course they turn off your wallets. On the other side of that is a complete autonomy and they give security. And he said, if they can do that with a digital dollar and again, this is Jean Carlo, not MESOC talking about it, because if we can do that with US dollar, that would be a tremendously useful CBDC. Now, will that come to pass? I don't know. Would you trust the government? Probably not. If you're here, probably not, then I'll off we go. So yeah, will you be able to quite buy crypto? Not in China, probably America and who knows other places? It's just a big guess. Near or Seoul, which have the higher upside longer term. I like near, I'm at the CEO in Austin. I see he's a little more down to, well, I don't know the other CEO from Seoul. I can't really say it, but I liked him because he's like, look, we got a long way to go. There's a lot of issues that are coming up. And if we don't do sharding, it's not gonna really work out. We need to do this, this, this and this. And I was like, yeah, that's true. I like people who can be self-deprecating and say that it's not the most awesome project and there's a long way to go. Poopster again. Why would anyone want to buy the dip right now? Soon you'll likely have to do the same with the buy the bottom instead of catching up on. Yeah, it's true. So I used to be the buy the dip guy and then I was realizing like, wait, wait, wait. This is a bear market. We shouldn't be buying dips. So like, I haven't bought one since January, February, somewhere around there. I'm just waiting. I think we're gonna go down farther. But instead of dollar cost averaging every day, I'm not that smart. So now I use dollar cost average once a week and just go from there because I don't know. I don't know where it's gonna be. Like last week was my day when I hit 17,000. I actually caught Bitcoin at 17.6, but that's just luck. It's just luck. So that was my DCA day and it worked out. Next week, I'm my DCA and it's 30,000 and then it goes on a 20, I have no idea. But I think the three, five, 10 year timeframe probably work itself out. Russia's going back to the 70s, maybe perhaps. Okay, this is a good question. CryptoMind is our FDIC cash. And he's talking about dollars, not USDC, still safe if it all collapses, yes. So as I understand it, do your own research, but on their website, they're saying that all dollars, dollars, not stable coins are protected USDC. That means up to $250,000, as I understand it. Again, look on their website to double check, but that's as I see it. Yes, which is backed by the US government. Oh, now you're not afraid of it. Now you're okay with the US government, huh? Oh, well, FDIC, that's fine, but the rest of the government, pfft. Sure, anyone else know if you have a crystal ball? Everybody likes to have a crystal ball. The only place that has a crystal ball is breaking points. That's the only place that has a crystal ball. Throw something in the green, I'll knock the green screen over.  Then you'll get to see that I'm living in my mom's basement. This is not something I want to show people. Yeah, so Brandon, I talked about this. I think they're just fine right now because they got this big fat loan, but you gotta understand, I mean, like the people behind Voyager, they got a lot of contacts. And that's just years and years and years of being in these trading platforms. Again, Steve, CEO of E-Trade worked out okay. I think E-Trade's still around, which is crazy. Now, green screen. Kevin, any chance you can arrange a limited ledger discount quarter? There's actually a, I think if you use my code, you get like 10% off, I think. It's in the description. Again, affiliates. I gotta tell you, I gotta tell you, I'm on fire with the shilling today. Doing pretty good. The king of the shilling. Let's see, I love you too. Should I buy Apple stock or throw it up? I don't own any Apple. The only thing I want is gummy form. Yeah, Des, smash those likes, please.  Pay us another, what? All right. If you hold a crypto coin and then regular is clear, they have classed that crypto's security, what happens is the coin become worth of a server and into a stock. That's a great question. So people are always, they're always fearful.  So what does that mean for these exchanges? Well, what it means is that they have unregistered securities and they're selling unregistered securities. So there's gonna be a refractory period. And this was, I think in the bill that was just put out by Senator Lumis from Wyoming, where there's gonna be a time when everybody can transition into going from a crypto, a commodity, whatever they classify it now, into a registered security, and which means a lot of paperwork, which means a lot of lawyers, which means a lot of money, let's be honest. And I don't think, so first of all, what it'll probably do is that there'll be a timeframe when the exchanges are gonna have to say, look, what do you wanna do? Do you wanna keep this on here or are you gonna sell it? Because we can't, at some point, you're not gonna be able to take it off because it's a security and we're not registered to sell securities. So at that point, they'll have to give people options.  That will be illegal, however, who knows. But if the US government's gonna do that, there should be some timeframe when they give you options to do whatever you need to do to, with your crypto. Probably have to sell and buy it back. Raz, so do you as a YouTuber feel responsible for the products that you promote, even though their future is not in your hands? Am I responsible for the projects? I want all projects that I talk about to do well and why would I want that? Because I own them all and I have skin in the game. So there is nothing on this channel that I talk about that I own, well, except for that Eurocoin because I can't get it right now. But I do own USDC and I do own VGX and for Sweatcoin, I'll be buying into that project big time and that's it. And so do I feel responsible? I think I feel responsible for my economic wellbeing. So I'm, but you gotta know I'm biased, right?  And that's the big thing. I'm biased because I own it. So if I'm talking about it, I own it. I make no bones about that. I think everybody knows that. And I think what a lot of people don't like is like, when I talk about a coin that is not their coin, well, how can Rob talk about that crap project? Why doesn't he talk about XYZ coin, which is one that I own? So that's what it is. I hope I answered your question. Soul Founder dump coming. Yeah, and don't forget those unlocks for, does everybody know how to do unlocks to find the unlocks, the cliffs, and how to see the unlocks schedules for each of the crypto digital asset projects. Does everybody know how to do that? Tell me in the comments. Just a lot of comments. Okay, Manny, I'll play the game. You kind of wrecked your audience. Which part? Amazon is massively shares by 21. Yes, they did. I think it'll go up though in a little bit of time. We'll find out. Okay. So this is the unlock schedules. Let me just show everybody real quick. So this is what it is. Let me get out of here. So thus, unlocks schedules. If you go to, let me share my screen. We got a couple of minutes. Da, da, da. Masari. We got a Masari and you can sign up for a pro account, I guess, but I don't, you don't need one for this. So you go to the assets and whatever you want to take a look at. So we'll take a look at Solana and we'll go to the profile and the token economics. And you can, let's see. So here was the initial distribution of Sol. So it was almost 16% to seed round investors. Probably some VCs and people got in early, right? Two, 2.5% to founding sales, five to validators, one, da, da, da. 12.5% to team members, that's a lot. 12.5% to the Solana Foundation, all right. And 38% of the community reserve, all right. Here's the seed sales. This is the dates, these are the time frames. This is the breakdown. Founders and projects, rewards, investors, okay, great. Here's the supply schedule. This is where it comes down to. So you want to take a look at what's the cliff? The cliff is before the people, the cliff is people can buy in but they got to wait a certain amount of time before they can start to sell it. That's really what the cliff is. So you can see right here in 2020, it's probably why I did sell well, I'll be honest with you, because there wasn't a lot of dumping. But then of course, that's when we hit here, 2021, you saw some more, just a big, that's a big wallet. And of course, not that people would sell on January 2021. I mean, some could, but there's a lot of crypto that went into those hands and then it just keeps going up. But again, like right over here, this is, oh, this is staking rewards. Founders, pretty flat. Once you get to a certain point of, oh, it's still going up. Grand pool, community reserves on a foundation. Seed sale, seed sale, but it's still flat. So it all kind of came up right here, but there's still more here. So that's just some of the, you can do that for any crypto project that you wanna see. So I hope that helps. Let's see, you wrecked yourself. I don't feel wrecked. Best wallet for Cardano. I just use Daedalus. I just like it, even though it's slow. Like for the download stuff, super slow. That's some accountability. Sure, okay. Thank you. Yeah, Robert, you gotta watch a lot of videos. Don't just, I can't just tell you that I own it and that's it. You gotta make that decision for yourself. Yeah. Amazon stock will, I still own a bunch of it, or a little bit, I guess I'd say, compared to some people. Rob thought it was a diamond and a million of lights. Only on happy hour. I do not have a good cake recipe. Here's a good one. Wait to buy Tesla, we'll go lower. Cardano's will go down a bit due to supply chain. I gotta agree there. That doesn't make sense, actually. Supply chain issues. What? Tesla was weird that Elon posted $711 gas price in the stock flow that's $711. I don't know if that's true, but it's interesting. Ah, this is a good one. Dave's Diabetics, is your DCA setups automatically or do you do it manually? And do you purchase daily, weekly, hourly, things that good? So, mostly what it is is just automatic. And that's why I like Voyager so much because I just set it up. I'm like, I wanna buy Voyager on Sunday, this amount, and do it every week, and it goes. However, there's a time that I switched over because remember we talked about this. I knew the CPI numbers were coming out. I thought that I'm like, I don't think inflation's under control, but I knew the CPI numbers are gonna be high, and they were. And then when they came out, the price dumped, and then I bought a little bit there. I said, you know what? Jerome Powell's still gonna talk on the Federal Reserve. I still think there's a little bit downward to go. So then instead of dollar cost average every day, I just saved my money. And then the day that Jay Powell came out and said, yeah, we're gonna do this, and he did that, I think it was 0.75, then it dumped even more over the next couple of days. And I just picked it up as it started to cascade down. Now I'm just doing once a week because I don't know if we're in the absolute bottom and no one can tell you. And if my plan is just to accumulate once a week and tell the Fed pivots. And they say, you know what? That's as good as we're gonna do with the rates, and we'll start to taper off. And the quantity of tightening and all that good stuff. That could take a while. And sometimes it's just good just to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Rob, can you along with two ledgers at different times on a single device? You have to switch things out because I got multiple ones, and you have to use ledger live. And ledger live will only work with the one with the mnemonic phrase that you have. So you have to kind of just move them together. I don't think you do it at different, a single device. Even a single device, cause I do it, but at different times, yes. What, Bitcoin's under 20,000 again. What did I do? Eh, I went up again. False X, hex. There's always a hex again somewhere in the chats. Rob, for a 10-year timeframe, would you DCA, ETH, ADA, SOL, or stick with old Bitcoin? Here's the thing. The longer I'm in crypto, the more I realize that Bitcoin is just the safest bet. And sometimes the guy with the least hassles is the winner. So some days I'm just like, ah, just Bitcoin and that's it. But then I realize that there's some pretty big gains that be had on some altcoins. And there's some really big gains to be had on degenerate plays. But those are risky, and you'll probably lose all your money. So these days it's pretty much Bitcoin, cause, and I'm not even buying that every day. So I'm waiting for the accumulation phase, but as time goes on and Fed pivots, I'll get another altcoins, just not right now. So I won't stick with Bitcoin forever because there's other stuff out there. And I only am willing to invest when I'm okay to lose. Thank you, Kirk. Mind sharing your view on the length of this crypto winter. Well, first of all, we've never been recession recession and we're not formally in a recession yet. So it'll be interesting to see. Even with the coronavirus in March, March 2020, that was short lived to be sure. So, well, I've shown this many times, spam. And it looks like this. If we look at just the times of downturns and bear markets and recessions, they usually last about two years, two a year and a half, like they do right here. 81, 82, 90, 91, 2001, 2007, 2008, nine, so roughly two. So if I'm gonna say pick a timeframe, probably about two years, which again, everybody says this time is different. It's not different, it's always the same stuff. It was two years in 2014 and 15. It was two years in 2018 and 2019. It's gonna be two years, I think in 22 and 23. And we're gonna see it again in 26, 27. That's just how I see it. Oh, really, thankless video interview with Mark Cuban. Good for those guys. Coinbase probably is safe. Yeah, maybe. I just don't know. And even if you look at their terms and conditions, and this was just put out about a month ago or so, and it says if they're in bankruptcy or they become insolvent, that they can use your crypto to essentially dig them out of the hole. So just so you know that. That's exactly the same language that Celsius had. So how do you combat that? It's pretty simple. It's all gone. 100% scams, nothing on the exchanges, no leverage, take profits. Very simple. I don't know why it's... And then, so Ray says, I have 10K and Voyager in the process of moving every Satoshi. Look, I mean, it could be nothing, the ones I've talked about, but you know, I think it's better just to be safe than sorry sometimes. And if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. And do you move it back? You know, you wanna gain the yield, you say, okay, well, everything's good. But I mean, with Celsius, that video could have been put out a little earlier by me, but I saved a couple of people, I guess. That's it. And who knows if it's all gone or whatnot? Time will tell. All right, everybody, it's been an hour. This is too long. So thanks so much for sticking by. I do appreciate it. Like today's video, thumbs up, subscribe, I'll need a time sensitive. That's it for today. So thanks so much. Appreciate it. I'll see you on the next one. Bye.


I can't be more proud to be the head coach of this football team. That's right there in the second half is our identity. So, believe in it, practice it, preach it, demand it out of each other. We write our stories. Intercept it. Fired.  We don't panic, we don't freak out, put the next guy in there. Oh, Don Trill! Diante Foreman! If you fight like you did in the second half, I'll take you in any street fight.  We're going to win a ton of games. One play at a time, one practice at a time. Win every day, not just every game. Win every day. We're going to go all the way, bro. We got to take it one week at a time, bro. Let's go, baby. Hey, Titans on three. One, two, three. Titans! Is what you work for. It's January 18th, and we're talking about a football game in Nashville, Tennessee on the Mike Vrapel Show. I'm Mike Keith, the head coach not with us tonight as he is busy preparing for Saturday's Tilt with Cincinnati. So pleased to be joined by General Manager John Robinson. And John, as we turn to you, the excitement around St. Thomas Sports Park this week. Wow, you can feel it everywhere. Yeah, I mean, we're excited, Mike. It was good to have that week and allow some guys to get back healthy, but we're back at it. Rip Rowan ready to go. Watching all those playoff games over the weekend, finally seeing who we're going to play. We're just stoked to be back to work and try to keep this thing going. You know the opponent is Cincinnati. Your initial thoughts on the Bengals? Yeah, Mike. I mean, it's a young explosive team on both sides of the ball. Been in the system with Coach Taylor there for a couple years, and they're really playing at a high level. All right, let's talk about Cincinnati's defense to begin. Take a look at some of their top performers on the defensive unit. You have to start with Trey Hendrickson, who comes over from the New Orleans Saints 14 sacks. The other defensive end, Sam Hubbard plays the run well. He has seven and a half sacks. Logan Wilson leads the team in tackles and in interceptions, and the former Dallas Cowboy, Chidobi Awujie with 64 tackles and a couple interceptions. How do you characterize this overall defensive unit? What do they do under Lou Anarumo? Yeah, I think they play really good team defense. Mike, it's an attacking front seven with all those guys that you mentioned, plus reader, DJ Reader in the middle, who's a tough guy to try to move out of there. They've got a lot of different pieces in the back end that they've added. But I think one of the blue guys back there is Bates the safety. He's been in a system for a while now. He plays down, he plays back. You can see him communicating all the time. But it's attacking on pass downs where they mix the concepts coverage-wise on you and they're stout against the run. What do you have to get for Brian Tannehill against this Bengals defense? Well, I think first and foremost, it's take care of the football. Taking care of the football, delivering accurate passes to the guys when they're open, get the running game going, build off that, our play action game, the things that we do well. Do what we do well for four quarters and take care of the football is how we need to approach this game. Speaking of the running game, what should we expect from Derek Henry in his return to the lineup? Yeah, we'll see. I mean, Derek's looked good. We've worked him back in and he's anxious to get back out there. He's chomping at the bit. Guys are excited to see him on the practice field and we'll see how the game goes. But we know what he's capable of. When he's at his peak performance. Let's talk about your offensive line, too. What are the challenges for them against this Bengals defense?  They got good length. They're disruptive off the edge. We'll have to be really firm on the edges.  You know, we got to be firm in the middle. We got to keep, you know, big DJ Reader from pushing the pocket back and give Ryan a pocket to throw from. We got to get on our guy in the run game and block him through the whistle. Not to the whistle, but through the whistle. DJ Reader listed at 347 pounds. He may weigh even more than that. When we come back for more of the Mike Vrable show, we turn to the Bengals offense and see what the Titans defensive challenges will be against Cincinnati. It's divisional playoff week. We continue on the Mike Vrable show.  Titans preparing to take on the Cincinnati Bengals. We've covered the Bengals defense. It's time to get into their offense, which you probably know is the more explosive part of their football team. Joe Burrow led the NFL in completion percentage this year through 34 touchdowns. Joe Mixon can run it. He can catch it. He could certainly score it. Jamar Chase, the best rookie receiver in the NFL. Oak Ridge native T Higgins also with 1,000 yards. The Cincinnati Bengals are the first team in NFL history with a 4,000 yard passer, 1,000 yard rusher and 2,000 yard receivers with all four of those gentlemen being under the age of 26. So John Robinson, a challenge. Let's start with Joe Burrow. How do you create pressure on him? Well, that's going to be a key for the game. Mike is really attacking this offensive line and finding ways to get into creases to disrupt his passing game. You know, it's whether it's pressure from the outside to force him to step up or pressure from the inside to get him running out of the pocket. We've got to find ways to get him off the spot, disrupt the timing because when he's back there and he's on the spot and he's in rhythm, he's pretty lethal with what he can do. Mixon is a pro bowler this year after having an injury plagued 2020. What's the challenge of defencing the former Oklahoma star when he takes those handoffs and pitches? Yeah, I mean, he's got great size and speed.  I mean, he's over six foot. He's probably 20, 225. He runs sub four or five. He's got good pick and slide through traffic. He's good at breaking tackles. He's a hard guy to bring down, but he's not just a runner. He's really good out of the backfield. They get the ball to him on some screens and some, you know, some choice routes out of the backfield. So he's really a three down player at running back that you certainly have to account for. With all of the receiving threats that the Cincinnati Bengals have, what are the main jobs for your secondary? Yeah, certainly when it's man coverage, Mike, cover your guy. Don't let your guy catch the ball. You know, we tell it all the time when we talk to these rookies in draft prep, it's like, well, what's the most important thing? Just don't let your guy catch the ball. And if somebody around you has the ball, tackle that guy. But when we're playing man coverage, it's being sticky in our coverage. We're playing zone. Be disciplined in your zone. Don't start chasing guys around. Cover your area, you know, wait for the, you know, anticipate the throw, read the quarterback, and then make a break on it. For your defense, when you have won games this year, you have come up with plays that turned those games. How do you make that happen in a game against Cincinnati on set? Well, I think you, you know, you alluded to it. It's about pressure in the quarterback. It's about being disciplined in our coverage, continuing to find ways to create turnovers. The more you can take the ball away and get extra possessions for your all fans, it's just so advantageous for your football team when it comes to winning the football game. So, you know, those three things, it's about stopping the run, getting after the passer, being disciplined in our coverage and finding ways to create turnovers. All right. As we get ready to go to break, it's time for us now to do our Delta Dental. Can you guess the title? Right now, I don't want to say you're better at this than Mike Vrable is, but you may be better. So, we're excited to have you here for this segment. Don't tell Mike I said this. Here's your hint as we go to break. Delta Dental would like that. Pretty good look there, John. Yeah, wouldn't be much work to do on that smile. It looks pretty good to me. It looks pretty good. More coming up on the Mike Vrable show with John Robinson. Stay tuned. General Manager John Robinson sits in for Mike Vrable on a short week. Titans play Cincinnati on Saturday at 3.30 at Nissan Stadium. Right now, time for the big reveal. Delta dentals, can you guess this Titan? I don't know that John Robinson has ever missed in one of these when he's filled in. John, let's see if you can keep the streak intact. I think I've got it, Mike. It looks like that is the bulldog from Mississippi State, Mr. Jeffrey Simmons. Hail State indeed. There he is, 8.5 quarterback sacks. What a year for Jeffrey Simmons. He ended up with something crazy like nearly 60 quarterback pressures. Is that right? I don't know. It's it's a lot. You know, he's really improved as a pet. He's always been a big, strong, powerful player in there, but he's refined his patch rush technique really well and he's fine. He's found ways to get off those guys. A lot of times it's double teams and he's fine. He's found ways to crease in there and get pressure and he plays the game the way that we want to play. That's for sure. You made it clear when you drafted him, you thought his upside was incredible and one of the reasons is he loves football so much. And I think you've just touched on one area where that's proven and that is the way he works to get better and has gotten better every single year. He has. And I think one of the most important things is his leadership.  Guys have always respected him, but he's become more vocal. He's been a vocal leader for our football team. He's just a great person off the field, an outstanding teammate and a leader for us on the, you know, on the team and certainly on game days. And he's a great guy to have coming off the bus first too, isn't he? Oh my goodness. Yes. His boots fit a little bit better than mine do, Mike. Jeffrey Sevens, this week's Delta Dental. Can you guess this Titan? Titans need a big game from Big Jeff. When this edition of the Mike Vrable show continues, we're going to have a Titans file with another big guy, only he plays on the offensive line. Amy Wells standing by after this. If you play for Mike Vrable and John Robinson, football had better be important to you. And that's a key this time of year. When you get into the key moments of different playoff games at those times, the guys that it's just vitally important to seem to make the plays that win the big games. In this week's Titans Files, Amy Wells talks with a Titan who loves football and plays it like it's his last game every single week. We're talking about number 76, Roger Saffold. Roger, the 2021 season has brought challenges for everybody, but for you specifically, we've seen you battle through injuries. We've seen you battle through personnel changes within your own offensive line. We've seen you battle just personally through life and being a human being. What has the season been like for you?  You know, when it comes to life in general, you got so many things you deal with outside of the game and then you have these struggles inside the game and, you know, luckily I've been talking to the right people and helping me through that and I love how consistent I've been and just, you know, my approach and just trying to make every day as best as I possibly can make it. Everyone talks about how hard you work. That grind really shows through. Where does that, I guess, mental toughness, that mentality come from and just the ability to keep going no matter what? Oh, man, it was something that was instilled in me at a young age for my father. You know, we used to always talk about, you know, how hard work beats talent. And, you know, even when I was a young kid and nine years old, I used to do push-ups, sit-ups and run around my neighborhood. Like, that was my training as a little kid and it kind of stuck. It kind of stuck and, you know, you get happy with the results at the end of the year and I've just been trying to stay consistent with that through my career. What makes all of this worth it for you? It's the grind. I fell in love with the grind when I was a little kid.  But, you know, just the fact that there's always a journey, it's always the one goal. It gets so fun around this time of year. What does this game mean to you? It means everything to me. This is another opportunity to get closer to the goal of winning a championship. And for me, it elevates my game completely. The focus goes up, the hard work goes up, the attendance and meetings, and then just overall gameplay. I've seen it just play better around this time of year. You know, this is the type of games that bring out the best of you. The return of Derek Henry is something that has Titans fans losing their mind, like actually going crazy. For this Titans offense, how much of a help is it to get a big, strong physical back like Derek Henry back in the lineup? I mean, honestly, I think it's like, what is the difference when you have your star player on the field? I mean, he takes a lot of attention in many different areas. He's going to make things easier for AJ, Julio, all of our wide receivers, tight ends. He's going to make those playfakes a little bit harder to see. It's just great to have him back on the field, have another leader on the field, have another star on the field, and see what exactly these defenses can do to really stop us. How much better is the offense now than it was in October when he left? Honestly, I think it kind of came down to just how consistent could we be in just being efficient in the run game and the pass game. And we've been starting to do that. One of those signs that the thing that's great about this team is that there's always room for improvement. And we have never thought that we'd just arrive. Like, we're continuing to work. The Titans faced the Cincinnati Bengals in 2020 in Cincinnati. Didn't get the win in that game. Do you go back that far and look at a game that you played against a team even though an entire season has passed? Honestly, I can't. I mean, I think that the entire look of the Bengals has completely changed. There's many different players in their front.  We've seen what Jamar Chase has been able to do. And we see that they've been a high score in offense. All of those are recipes for a playoff team, which they are. And for us, it's going to be yet another challenge. I think that we just have to be excited that it's at our place and on our terms. It's a great day to have your best game. Make no mistake about it. Y'all deserve this. All the work that y'all put in, y'all deserve this. John, you went out and got Roger Saffold from the LA Rams. How has he been such an important part of what the Titans have done the last three seasons? Yeah, I mean, Rodgers, he's cut from the fabric that we're made of. He works hard. Football is extremely important to him. And he plays at a high level. You know, and I'm glad he's on this team. You know, a lot of our success is attributed to, you know, some of the unnoticed things that Roger does and that line does as a whole. But, you know, I'm proud that he's here and we're going to need his best game this Saturday. That's a key. We'll also have other keys from John Robinson coming up as we get ready to take our final break and come back with the Nissan keys. John Robinson sitting in for Mike Vrable on the Mike Vrable show. Stay tuned. Titans bingles Saturday at Nissan Stadium, 3.30 kickoff. You can hear it on 104.5, the zone and other Titans radio stations beginning with Titans countdown at 2 o'clock. Amy Wells and Rhett Bryan will have that. Let's talk now with John Robinson about keys to knocking off the Cincinnati Bengals here on the Mike Vrable show. We refer to him as the Nissan keys. All right, John, key number one, a special teams goal about field position. Yeah, if we can create some field position in the return game, Mike, that's so critical. You know, if you can get the ball out past the 25, out past the 30 on the kick return game, if they give you an opportunity to run it out and in the pump return game, if you can get 10 yards, that's the first down. It's a good drive starter for our offense. And then our coverage units got to do a really good job of covering kicks and limiting the field position that we give the Bengals. All right, Nissan key to success. Number two is about takeaways. Yeah, we talk about it every week. It's such a key component to wins and losses is creating extra opportunities for your offense by taking the ball away, whether it's hammering the ball out, causing a fumble, getting an interception, finding some way to steal an extra possession and not let your opponent, you know, get points and in turn, giving your offense a chance to go down and score points can really swing the pendulum in your favor. Key number three is about the offense going down and scoring points, but not three, you want seven. Yeah, it's about finishing. That's a key fabric of our football team is effort and finishing. We get the ball down in the red zone. Let's finish it with touchdowns. Let's not walk away with three. Let's try to get those extra four points.  It boosts the team and boosts the defense when you can score touchdowns in the red zone. John, going to be an amazing atmosphere on Saturday. Yeah, I'm really excited, Mike, to see all the fans. They've been great throughout the course of the season here, coming out and supporting us. The attendance has been awesome. I'm just really looking forward to the loudness, the energy that they're going to bring and all the two-tone blue in the sun on Saturday. John, thanks so much for sitting in for Mike Vrable tonight. Enjoy it, Mike. Tighten up. All right, so as we end tonight's show, want to mention something very special to benefit the Titans Foundation. Place your bid to win one of two playoff VIP experiences. Lots of great things that you can see right there in terms of what you can win. Go to auctions.TennesseeTitans.com to place your bid before Thursday. Again, all proceeds benefit the Titans Foundation. That's auctions.TennesseeTitans.com to place your bid. For John Robinson, I'm Mike Keith. Thanks so much for joining us for the Mike Vrable show, and we'll see you next time.