This systematic review examines the scientific basis for Canada's physical activity guide for healthy active living for adults, specifically focusing on the dose response relationship between physical activity and premature alka's mortality in seven chronic diseases, cardiovascular disease, stroke, hypertension, colon cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes, and osteoporosis. The review identifies a total of 254 articles that met the eligibility criteria related to these health outcomes. Overall, the current literature supports the dose response relationship between physical activity and these chronic conditions, with higher levels of physical activity reducing the risk for premature alka's mortality. The Canadian guidelines appear to be appropriate to reduce the risk for these chronic conditions and alka's mortality. This article was authored by Ivy Adam, Charles Worth-Sara, Warburton-Darren-ER, and others.


Hello and welcome to the session in which we would look at a stock dividend example. We are giving the data for Aram company, we are giving the stockholders equity and we're giving the selling price for the stock. So Aram company stock is selling currently for $40 per share, that's the market price and the stockholders equity which is the balance sheet is as followed. Common stock, $10 power value, Aram has 400 shares issues and outstanding which is $10 times 400,000 shares gives us the 4 million. Paid in capital and access of power common stock is 1.3 and retained earning is 600,000. In this example Aram company will issue a 15% stock dividend, they will issue a 90% stock dividend and Aram company will declare two for one stock split. And what we're going to do, we're going to look at the journal entries and how do we come up with the figures when we need to journalize a stock dividend as well as a stock split. Before we proceed any further I have a public announcement about my company farhatlectures.com. Farhat accounting lectures is a supplemental educational tool that's going to help you with your CPA exam preparation as well as your accounting courses. My CPA material is aligned with your CPA review course such as Becker, Roger, Wiley, Gleam, Miles. My accounting courses are aligned with your accounting courses broken down by chapter and topics. My resources consist of lectures, multiple choice questions, true-false questions as well as exercises. Go ahead start your free trial today, no obligation, no credit card required. Now this topic as it is presented right now could be given as a CPA simulation on the CPA exam or this could be an exercise in your intermediate accounting course. Regardless we're going to go ahead and try to resolve this problem. Starting with Adam company issued 15% stock dividend. Now the first thing you want to know is 15%. What does the 15% means? It means the stock dividend is considered a small stock dividend because we have a large stock dividend and a small stock dividend.  Is it a small or is it a large? Now how do we determine whether a stock dividend is a small or a large stock dividend? If the stock dividend is 20 to 25% we consider it small and obviously if it's a greater than 20 to 25% we consider it large. Now you might be saying what about if it's between 20 to 25% you'll make a judgment but usually they don't give you this type of questions on the CPA exam just know we are dealing with a small stock dividend. So what do we have to do when we are dealing with a small stock dividend? Well the first thing we have to do is we have to compute how many new shares are we issuing. So right now we have 400,000 shares outstanding and we're going to be issuing 15% additional shares and those additional shares will be given, will be given to the shareholders distributed proportionately to the shareholders. Well if we take 400,000 shares right now times 15% we issue 60,000 new shares. Now if you own 10% of the stocks you'll get 10% of the 60,000 if you own 1% of the 400,000 you'll get 1% of the 60,000 so it's distributed proportionately. Now we are dealing with the journal entry we need to journalize this dividend. How much do we debit retained earnings? Remember retained earnings is the account that dividend comes out of so it's going to reduce retained earnings. Well for small stock dividend and you need to know this we are going to use the market value per share. It means we're going to take the 60,000 new shares we issued we're going to multiply it by 40 dollars. What does the 40 dollars represent? The market price of the share which will give us a debit retained earnings of 2.4 million. Now for every debit we need a credit. We're going to credit first an account called common stock dividend to be distributed or distributable 600,000 which is the number of shares times 10 dollars it's the same way as we credit common stock but right now we have not distributed the stock therefore we have it in this account called common stock dividend distributable. Now this is an equity account this is not a liability this is an equity account and any remaining will be credited to additional paid and capital common stock so here's what I want you to notice when it comes to stock dividend. We reduced retained earnings which is equity then we increase two equity accounts for the same amount simply put we reduced equity by 2.4 million we increased equity by 2.4 million what happened to the company overall net effect there's no net effect on equity there is no net effect on the balance sheet. What I'm trying to say is this in contrast to cash dividend in contrast to property dividend stock dividend do not reduce your equity all what you are doing all what we did is this kind of if you want to look at it from a business perspective we took this we took part of the retained earnings which is part of the 6 million in retained earnings we took 2.4 of it and we distributed to the shareholders that's all what we did so overall the equity of the company is the same the equity of the company now the equity the individual equity of the shareholders of course they're going to be very busy they're going to be very busy they're going to be very happy not very busy very happy that they receive the additional shares. Now when we issue the actual shares we're going to debit common stock dividend distributable and we're going to credit common stock so let's see what happened overall let's take a look at the final picture so common stock dividend to be distributed is basically gone all what we did is we issued stocks we credited common stock credited paid in capital and rather than receiving cash what happened is the company debited retained earnings so we used the retained earnings to do what to compensate to reward our shareholders and this is a an example of a small stock dividend now let's assume the company issued 90% stock dividend well the first thing we have to know is how many new shares are we issuing well if we have 400,000 shares and this is independent from the prior one so we're not assuming that we have the additional shares we're going back to the original example 400,000 times 90% we're going to be issuing 360,000 new shares well again the question is how much do we debit retained earnings well for a large stock dividend we debit retained earnings for the par value therefore we're going to take 360 times 10 equal to 3.6 million that's that's the debit to retained earnings and we are going to credit common stock dividend distributable simply put we don't have additional paid in capital because we are issuing the stock dividend exactly at par so that's it it's two entries only then when we actually distribute the stock to the shareholders we are going to debit common stock dividend distributable so this is basically gone and we're going to credit regular common stock so basically what end up happening we issued stocks and we reduced retained earnings the same concept as before we reduced an equity account and we increased an equity account no effect overall now adam company declared two for one stock split what's the journal entry no entry all what we did here is we declared two for one stock split it means if you have one stock you're gonna have two now here's what's gonna happen so the outstanding shares of the company they they don't they're 400,000 they're gonna become 800,000 hold on a second if this 800,000 what's gonna happen to this number well if we double the number of shares we have to cut the par value in half so now we're back to the same where we are five dollars times 800,000 equal to 400,000 in common stock there is no entry the company will issue a memo and the shareholders would receive additional shares and the other thing that happens to the stock price becomes 20 as well so the shareholders immediately not better off because everything is adjusted but hopefully in the future the stock price will go up and they will have more shares what should you do stock dividend is extremely important topic on the CPA exam extremely important topic in your accounting courses go to far hat lectures and learn about stock dividend large stock dividend small stock dividend stock split because those topics are covered and you need to be comfortable with them good luck study hard and of course stay safe


This presents some straightforward causes, cases so we don't do, for example, call it cyst removal. We do it microscopic, endoscopic assisted for visualization, but in general we do it standard. The equipment is quite limited we use, so may fit fixation. We have an endoscope with one working channel and so with one working channel you are even limited with your possibilities to, on manipulation, we use a foggy, monopolar, in some cases a forceps or, for example, in difficult cases for penetration we use a pair of scissors. So this is a case similar to what we have seen starting a month ago with the supercell assist causing the head circumference to be too big and it's always very important that you, as it was visible with the presentation now that you really think about what you want to with your intervention because you have to choose your trajectory and you can't manipulate, it's impossible. You will harm the phonics, you will cause hemorrhage in the perenchyma. We always say to our residents don't do ventricle tourism, so it's dangerous, it's really dangerous, so choose what you want to do before and then do the job and otherwise you have to do a sediment intervention however. So this after puncturing the lateral ventricle right on you see the cyst. In this case we took a, not for perforation but for shrinking, we took a bipolar coagulation and then it just takes time. You have to shrink it stepwise, shrink, shrink. And now you, the forearm monroy, there's no major attachment so there's some kind of communication, left-right communication already. Now you have this nice view similar to what you have seen, the pituitary stalk, the client's posterior pulsation but apparently it's not completely free and only if you have really made a penetration so that the subordinate space is susceptible then there will be a clinical effect. Now it's quite floating and we let it like this. You can, could even enlarge it of course. There you can of course. In this case where you have a lot of space you can visualize it. So this was a lady with 33-olds which had typical signs of acute hydrocephalus which was visible in the CT scan. The family reported that there are some memory disturbances and we saw this mask, a thalamic mask and we decided to carry out a hydrocephalus treatment and a tumor babsy and what maybe perhaps were important that in general. So you may have risk of bleeding of course with the ETV but also with the tumor babsy but in general perform first the trigger systems to me because there's a less risk of hemorrhage which may blur your vision and after you've done that then go for tumor babsy. And you see it's not that chronic so it's not that transparent like you may see it in other cases and there the basilar artery is just behind it so it's a bit atypical, more lateral perforation we choose and it's a quite standard procedure that's very nice about it. You can't see it anywhere so this is a tumor not too superficial and if you have appropriate pieces stop before it starts to bleed and you will have some trouble. So it was a glioblastoma but it was one of the few patients she's now six years in follow-up just biopsy and she went well, no. She's lucky yes but the memory disturbance after radiation therapy so it's a problem but otherwise she's doing quite fine. Here you see the mask now it's follow-up, six years follow-up and you see that the tumor is literally not any more present and there you see this T2 artifact due to the CSF tumor and this arachnid cyst it's always a matter of debate if you do surgery or not patients go with headache to their GP or neurologist and they make a picture like that but this is one of these cases where there's some mass effect visible and we just made parietal excess perpendicular to the plant root and you can do it microsurgical but what is nice is that you don't empty the room and you don't have a collecting space and so it's quite good to work and you have less risk of a hematoma or stuff like that and it's always the same technique you do some shrinkage to get resistance and if you have some resistance you can perforate it easily and then you make the communication that's always the same principle because it's not a high flow if you have a high flow hydrocephalus or high pressure then the opening may be small but if it's low flow then it's better to make a bigger opening I think that's perhaps the rule which is mentionable so follow-up was fine like this and the last video just may appear that there's some bleeding when doing ETV and it's the simplest method to stop it just to stay in place make a bit of compression in it ask their anesthesiology if there's any change in blood pressure or heart rate and then it stops perfectly like this thank you


Now you might be aware that Nexlout has a tagging feature. This is very helpful if you want to give tags to files, so you can much more easily find them. But you can also say, hey, this is an internal project, or these are sensitive file security critical files. Now these tags are invisible in the file view. And as a user or as an administrator, you can automate a variety of actions on these tags. It can be very simple. You can say, hey, if a file has the tag PDF, convert it into a PDF file. Or if a file is dropped in a specific folder, you know, put a chat message in one of the chat rooms about this. Or add a specific tag or other things. But as an administrator, you can also use this to codify the policies around security in your organization into Nexlout files. So you can block access to files based on these policies. You can say, OK, if a file is called internal project X, then people outside of the project X team are not able to access these files. Or you can say, files that are accessed out of a certain IP range, access will be blocked. Even if people share with a public link, people can then think like, OK, you know, it is now available for other people. But you as an admin have put in the policies in Nexlout so that files cannot be accessed outside of certain time range, outside of IP ranges, outside of geographical areas, or again because of ownership tags and other factors. So this is a very good way to keep files secure.  Either it's available or it's not. But sometimes you need to make documents available for review by an external party. Let's say you work on a merger and acquisition and you want to show financial or legal documents to a third party. But you don't want them to download the files. Now, Nexlout, you have the option to share but block downloading of files and people can still see it. Now, of course, you don't want them to make screenshots of everything so then you can enable the watermarking. And this will make sure that while people can see the document and you can even give them editing rights, they will not be able to download the documents or do easily taking screenshots and then the watermarks will show when they take screenshots that they did that. Now, of course, manually tagging files for security has a problem which is that, well, people make mistakes and somebody can forget to set a tag. Now, you can automate some of this. You can say, okay, people in a certain group, let's say the finance department, when they upload Excel spreadsheets, let's give these the tag secure or critical because there's probably financial information. But this is still not watertight and there might be moments that you want to set tags based on the content of files. Now, for this, we have the automatic files classification. So what this does is it looks in the content of files and allows you to set some policies so that, for example, credit card information or personal information banking data is detected and these files then get automatically the correct tags that you have configured and this way all the policies that you have set into Nexlout will be automatically applied to these files. Now, these tags are also available on our mobile devices. You can see them there in the file view. Of course, as a user, when the tags are editable and that can be configured, but if they are editable, you can also add tags and remove tags as a user.


and served in the Solomon Islands during World War II. Came a battlefield. Today as we have been every day since the former combatants are united here as partners in peace around the world. International order that is in the Indo-Pacific and around the world for generations can be ignored including by opening embassies in Tonga, Kiribati, and right here in We're truly honored to be here because as I stated 80 years ago it changed the Marine Corps history. It changed the history of the Solomon Islands and it changed the history of our nation. Now I stand before you as a Marine but this was a joint battle. A joint battle with all the services and various nations fighting together and today representing that very as Lieutenant General George Smith from First Marine Exhibition Force and the current First Marine Division CG the blue diamond Ben Watson has returned to this sacred ground. I'm afraid about what our predecessors think about us. We're worried about when they look down what would they think and Ms. Secretary I think with his time in combat operations here and all the work he did for world peace when he returned first he would be proud of his daughter and he would be proud of the United States Marine Corps and the Joint Force and certainly he would be very happy to see the success of Solomon Islands and wish the utmost best for this great great country. Ladies and gentlemen Semper Fidelis and peoples of the United States and the Australian High Commissioner His Excellency Lachlan Straughn on behalf of the Japanese Ministry of Defense. We're flying from its yard on the United States Marine Corps service flight. I like when Rose actions occurred relatively early in the US campaign in the Pacific and as we all know fighting would rage around the world for three more years. The world has changed much in the past 80 years and it will continue to change but some things remain the same. Straughn durable alliances and partnerships between longtime friends are the glue that hold us together and keep a peaceful free and rules-based world. The government and peoples of the United States. A little more than six weeks since landing on Guadalcanal at the first Raider Battalion of the US Marine Corps under the command of Lieutenant General Merritt A. Edson fought off a determined effort by Imperial Japanese forces to retake the airstrip the Marines had dubbed Henderson Field for months after the fight here on Bloody Ridge in the air overhead in the surrounding seas and of course throughout the jungles beaches and villages of the island of Guadalcanal. What so many history books overlook however is the critical role that Solomon Islanders played in the making that history possible. It was thanks to Solomon Island's scouts and post-watchers that Lieutenant Colonel Edson and his forces were alerted that enemy soldiers were massing some 20 miles away from this spot near the village of Tasamboco. A raid that revealed an attack was being planned to attempt to recapture Henderson Field. It was thanks to Solomon Islanders then that the Marines were able to assemble their defense of Henderson Field and to prepare for the assault on Bloody Ridge.


J.E. L.L.O. The Jell-O program brought to you by Jell-O and Jell-O Pudding, coming to you from New York City starring Jack Benny, with Mary Livingston, Phil Harris, Dennis Day, and yours truly, Don Wilson. The orchestra opens the program with, What'll We Do? Better and Better. Yes, sir, Jell-O's been getting better and better all the time, year after year. And now, Jell-O comes forward with its most revolutionary improvement of all, locked in flavor. A new exclusive process for bringing you every last luscious bit of Jell-O's glorious goodness. Up until now, Jell-O's desserts constantly faded in flavor, while waiting to be used. But today, Jell-O's rich mouth-watering flavor is locked in. And no matter how long your package of Jell-O takes to reach you, time just can't steal away its flavor. Prove it for yourself. Open a package of Jell-O. There's no heavy fruity aroma, no sign of escaping flavor. But the instant you dissolve Jell-O, what a rush of rich marvelous flavor comes pouring out in my, how you enjoy it. Try Jell-O tomorrow. Feast your eyes on its bright, scintillating colors. Thrilled to Jell-O's full, never-fading, locked-in flavor. You'll say, Jell-O really is different. Because the flavor never goes away, we put it in and it's there to stay. What'll We Do, played by the orchestra? Ladies and gentlemen, exactly 449 years ago today, Christopher Columbus first set foot in the New World after a perilous ocean voyage of 40 days and 40 nights. Boy, what a trip. I wish I'd have been there. For weeks and weeks, Columbus and his band of intrepid adventures were tossed around in the storm-churned Atlantic, little knowing that they'd come through a lie. Refet means so. We'll make it, fellas. So now we bring you a man who gets seasick when the crackers bob about in his oyster stew, Jack Benny. Thank you, thank you. Jell-O again, this is Jack Benny talking, and Don, that was a very funny introduction you thought of. You sure love to kid your old boss, don't you? Yes, I do, Jack, and you're my idea of a real sport. Well. I make those cracks about you because you're so big, you're broad-minded. You're the kind of a guy that can take it. Ha, ha, ha. A good old Donzie. By the way, I believe you were born in Denver, Colorado, weren't you, Don? Well, yes, Jack. In fact, I spend my summers there. Your summers, eh? Uh-huh.  But after all, we've been together too long and it quibble over time.  Hello, Jack, how are you? Fine, thanks. Now, are you kidding? Don, have you heard any reports on our opening program last Sunday? You know, comments, reactions and so forth? Why, yes, Jack, some people seem to like it very, very much. Some people thought it was fairly good. And some people... Well, yes, sir. Well, Don, I thought the press was exceptionally nice this year. For instance, PM gave us a lovely notice. In fact, you could almost call it a rain. Come on, about the Daily News. Yep, PM said our opening program was really a humdinger. Very nice, don't you think? Oh, wonderful. And Radio Guide liked it, and Billboard, the theatrical paper, seemed to think we had a hilarious show. Tell them about the Daily News. Mary, it just so happens that Ben Gross, radio editor of the News, didn't like the program, and he's entitled to his opinion. I have no hard feelings towards Ben. You haven't, eh? No. Then why did you try to get Errol Flynn to beat him up? I didn't even know Flynn was in town. Anyway, most of the notices were very favorable. Did you read the one you got in The Daily Worker? Yes, I read The Daily Worker. What did you say, Mary? Same thing every year. Down with Benny. Yeah, but you talk about write-ups.  Benny wows him again. Here, Mary, read it yourself. OK. Well, naturally, Jack, your hometown paper would be 100% in your favor. I don't know about that. They're pretty critical, you know. Say, Jack, look at this news item on the other side of your write-up. Where? I didn't see it. It says Boo Boo Benny, cousin of Walt Keegan's, owned Jack Benny, was picked up again last night for parking his body too far away from the curb. What? When interviewed, Boo Boo said, I don't want to set the world on fire. I just want a bromo. Give me that clipping. Boo Boo is always getting into those publicity stunts. Anyway, Don, the consensus seems to be. Hi, it's Jackson. Like the wash woman says, what do you hear from the mop? What? M-O-P. I got the gag. You don't have to spell it. I got it. Hey, Phil, we were talking about the first program last week. Did you see any reviews on it? Yeah, there was a swell write-up in the orchestra world. Oh, the musician's favorite, eh? What did it say? It said, due to the length of the dialogue on Benny's first program, Phil Harris had to cut out his usual band number. Oh, they missed it, eh? No, they liked the idea. Oh, well, don't feel bad about her, Phil. It's only one opinion. And that reminds me, Jackson. I hate to bring it up, but Alice thinks that this program is a little too corny for a guy like me. What?  High-classer? Yeah, Alice says I ought to be on information, please. Oh, she does. Well, Phil, Alice is a dear, sweet girl, and I respect her opinion. But if you were ever on information, please, and you were asked who was the first president of the United States, and you said George Washington, Clifton Fadiman would drop dead. And I might also add that at present, Mr. Fadiman is in perfect health. Luca wants to be on information, please. Well, I feel even Jack would be afraid to go on that program. Absolutely. And he has a remarkable memory. Sir, can I read something? I never forget it. Especially that write-up in the daily news. Quiet, will you? You're going to keep talking about. Oh, hello, Dennis. Hello, Mr. Benny. How are you? Fine, fine thanks. Hey, Mr. Benny, did you see the write-up your opening program got in the Brooklyn Eagle? The Brooklyn Eagle? No, what did it say? It said what happened to you and the Dodgers shouldn't happen to a dog. Well, I guess there's still a little blue over the series. You know, you've. Anyway, Dennis, I heard a lot of nice things about your song last week, so now that you're here, let's have another one. OK, I'm going to sing a very popular number called Time Was. Good, good. And this being Columbus Day, I dedicated to my new girl I met last night. What's the connection? I picked her up at Columbus Circle. Oh, how are things around there? I must saunter by. Go ahead and sing, Dennis. Hold it. Come in. Mr. Benny, yes. May I congratulate you on this, the your opening broadcast of the new season. Opening broadcast, look, Bob, we had a show last Sunday. Good heavens, are you going to count that one? Get out of here.  Go ahead, then. We have a world of memories. You and I, you cherish more. And as the years later seem to flow, our coffee and swimming The fireworks and hay rides and midwinter sleigh rides And never a pass Hikes in the country and there's more than one tree. I was sung by Dennis Day, my favorite tenor. And now, ladies and gentlemen. Hey, Mr. Benny. What is it, Dennis? You know, I saw Charlie's aunt this summer and somebody just told me that pretty lady in it was you. Oh, well, it was me. It was me. It was my character in the picture. And now, ladies and gentlemen. Holy smoke, you know, I thought it was a real girl. Oh, no, no, no, Dennis, it was me. And now, ladies and gentlemen. I sent you a love letter. Forget about it.  Dennis, look, Dennis, the fact that I was wearing a dress shouldn't have fooled you that much. After all, a woman doesn't walk like me. Very few men walk like you. That's so. Speaking of the way you walk, Jackson, have you seen them penguins over in Radio City? Yes, I've seen them penguins. And he wants to be on information, please. All right, then. Jefferson was the first president. Oh, for Pete's sake, Phil Washington was the first president. I merely said, if you knew that, Faderman couldn't stand the shock. All right, Don, Faderman couldn't stand the shock. Oh, Jack, it's so obvious. Don, I know what's clever.  Faderman. Oh, if I'd only save my money. Don, Faderman. Oh, very well. An important message.  There you are, Steve. Jello, America's favorite gelatin dessert, is not only economical and easy to make, but it has that new locked-in flavor. Locked-in? By means of a new exclusive process, all of jello's full original goodness is now locked in for keeps. Is that what makes it taste so good? So remember, folks, the flavor never goes away. We put it in and it's there to stay. And poetry, too. Very good, Don. Very good, very good. See, I was right. It's not corny at all. It's terrific. And now, ladies and gentlemen, Hey, Mr. Benny, in that fan letter I sent you, I enclosed $0.25 for a photo. Later, kid, not now. Well, gee whiz. I haven't got one in a bathing suit. Now leave me alone. How he can do any good at Columbus Circle, I don't know. Really, I don't. And now, folks, we're having fun tonight. I'd like to announce that beginning next Sunday, October 19, our broadcast will come to you from Hollywood, California as we're returning home. Well, we sure had fun in New York, didn't we, fellas? Yes, it's been grand jack. The little woman and I saw nearly every show in town. I saw three swell ones, Panama and the Hattie and Claudia and the Wookie. Wait a minute. What about the one I took you to? Oh, yes, Arsenic took me to see Ol' Lace. Look, Mary, you don't have to be so bitter. Those were the best seats I could get. Oh, stop, will you? I'm not kidding. I got them from the producers of the show, Lindsay and Krause. They had dinner at my house one night. Well, they're even with you now. Oh, for heaven's sake, don't be silly. What if we were sitting up high? Who could see you? You were wearing a veil. Nothing. I got caught in some conflict. You got caught in that gag, too, right? You know, if you read that gag right, it's a good laugh, really, isn't it? That's only our second show, you know. Well, anyway, Mary, next time, next time you can go alone. Say, Jackson, Alice and I saw a lady in the dark the other night, and we thought it was great. Oh, did you like it? Yeah, she explained the whole plot to me. Well, get this situation. Now, Gertrude Lawrence plays the part of a dame who's all mixed up about everything, and she don't know what's the matter with her. So she goes to see a psychiatrist. Psychiatrist? That's a psychiatrist.  That's a kiyaki. Oh, yeah. Well, I was right about Washington. That I know. Anyway, she finally gets the right guy. They fall in love. The curtain goes down. Alice put on her shoes when we went home. Well, that's a vivid description.  Yes? Excuse me for intruding, Mr. Benny, but I got a note for you. I'm sorry I'm busy right now. Come back later. I would advise you to take a quick damn that disc communique. All right, what's the note? What does it say? I'm on a carrier pigeon. We ain't much on reading. Oh, OK, let's have it. Who's it from, Jack? Who do you think it's from? Rochester. Listen to this. Dear boss, please give bearer Mr. Columbus Smith. Columbus? Yeah, that's me. Oh. Happy anniversary. Let me read the note from Rochester. Please give bearer $50, which you owe me, as I owe it, to a group of gentlemen who ain't, and am being sorely pressed for payment. Well, of all the nerve, I don't care if he is pressed. Mr. Bennett, if you don't come through, that ball is going to be cleaned and pressed. Oh, well, look, Columbus, you tell Rochester, I'll call him when I get home tonight. What's his number? Monument to 1,700. The monument, eh? Yeah, and do call, lest 1 be erected to his memory. OK, I'll call him. Yeah, thank you. Goodbye, Mr. Bennett. Goodbye. Imagine Rochester sending for $50. Play something, Phil. He got into this jam. Let him get out of it. I'm going to set the world on fire, played by Phil Harris and his orchestra, who haven't even got a match. All right, I didn't like that gag either. I'd go to your bird. Say, Phil, I notice you're using a lot of New York musicians while we're in town. Now, where'd you get them? I walked out of Lindy's with a sturgeon in my pocket, and they followed me. Well, throw it to them. They look hungry. Now, fellas, as I told you before, we're leaving for California tomorrow, and I may not get to see it till train time. So I might as well give you your tickets right now. Oh, Phil, here's accommodations for you and Alice.  Oh, thanks, Jack. Oh, goodie, we get a lower going back. Yes, sir. Now, Dennis, Dennis, you're bunking with me, as usual. And, uh. Gee whiz, Mr. Benny, you snore. All right, I snore. It's only for three nights. You're young yet. Now, Mary. If I'm going to stay up all night, I might as well be a playboy. All right, be a playboy. Let's drop it. Now, Mary. I know. I'm going to sleep with Miss Whipple. That's right. Miss Whipple, who's she? Jack put an ad in the paper for someone to share my birth. Never mind. I meet more darned people that way. Mary, let me run things, will you? No planning a trip like this is no sin. I bet she's big and fast. She's very slim. I asked for a picture. Now, fellas, remember, we meet at the station a half hour before the train leaves. And I want you all to be there on time and no more complaints. Hey, Jackson, what's the idea of putting Alice and me in an upper berth? She's a big movie star. Phil, I'm in charge here, and you'll take what you get. Mr. Zanik won't like it. Nuts to Zanik. Now, fellas, nuts to Zanik? What did I say? I've got to make pictures there. I've got three more pictures to make there. What am I doing? Oh, well. Now, remember, fellas, everybody be at the station a half hour before the train leaves. I'm giving a cocktail party for Miss Whipple. Might as well all get acquainted. So try to make the come in. Oh, it's you again. Mr. Zanik, I just spoke to Rochester on the phone. He says imperative, I bring him to $50. Now, wait a minute. Did you tell Rochester I call him later tonight? Yes, sir. And he says if you don't call him now, later tonight you'll have to communicate with him by Ouija boat. Oh, he's making a mountain out of nothing. Rochester must think money grows on bushes. Well, you ought to, don't you? Mary, if you're referring to that bet I made on the Louis Nova fight, I have never conceded that Nova was knocked out. Well, Jack Rochester would never have sent the note unless it was important. Now, I think you ought to call him. Oh, all right. Mary, get me his hotel, will you? Monument 21700. OK. And you've certainly gone to a lot of trouble here, Columbus. Are you a good friend of Rochester's? No, sir. I'm just a member of the syndicate which threw that fatal seven. Oh, I see. Good bye, Miss Bennet. Goodbye. We just had a left Rochester home where he bought. Here's your number, Jack. Thanks. Hello? Good evening, Theresa Hotel. I'd like to talk to Rochester Van Jones. This is Mr. Benny calling. Oh, hello, Mr. Benny. Are you going to pay him that 50? What? What business is it of yours? We're stepping out tonight, and I had hope for a bottle and a bird. I can't help that. Now, operator, will you please ring Rochester's room? Yes, sir. By the way, Mr. Benny, has Rochester got a girlfriend in California? Oh, for heaven's sake. Yeah, she got four or five girls there. Is it four or five? What's the difference? I'm going to carve him up and pass him around. Operator, will you please get Rochester. I want to talk to him. Hey, yes, sir. I'll ring his sweet. Imagine living in a suite yet. Call for Mr. Van Jones. Here I am, sweet potato. Don't sweet potato me. It's short, dark, and going to be shorter. Operator, operator, get off the line.  Did Columbus get there? Yes, he landed twice today. I got your note, Rochester, and I'm not sending you any 50. But boss, I ordered some gentlemen, one of whom is mechanized. I don't care what he is. And another thing, Rochester, why is it you have a great big suite here in New York while I live in one room? Well, I'm in so much trouble I got to pace up and down. Oh, you do? Yeah.  Operator, will you please stop cutting in.  And yet you lost $50. Explain that. Well, boss, it just happened that I was down on one knee tying my shoe. Uh-huh. And several of my large members got down on their knees to see what I was doing. Uh-huh.  Well, I'm sorry for you, Rochester, but you'll have to take care of your own obligations. But boss, all I want is the money you owe me on the Louis Nova fight. I told you before that in my opinion, Louis did not knock out Nova. Oh, reconsider. Operator, please. Now, Rochester, I don't want to discuss this any further. The fight is over, so forget it. Wait a minute, boss, there's a gentleman here that's very much interested in me collecting that $50. Would you mind talking to him? Oh, all right, put him on. Hello, Mr. Benny. This is Metropolitan M. Spears talking. Yes? Rochester tells me you questioned the outcome of the recent Louis Nova fight. I certainly do. The bet was that Louis would win by a knockout. When the fight was over, Nova was on his feet. Yeah, but he wasn't going no place. Look, all I'm trying to say is Nova was not unconscious when the fight ended. Mr. Louis thought he was. That's what he thinks, but I'd like to get Mr. Nova's opinion. Well, when he comes to, let's check with him. Now listen, Metropolitan, you say Rochester owes you $50. That's right, and it was my understanding to come back here, boy. I ain't got my hat on. Well, look, Metro, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll send you a check for Rochester's debt as soon as I am definitely convinced that's to the result of the fight. Thank you very much. That's OK. I'd like awfully well to get it full inflation sets in. You'll get it. Now put Rochester on the phone. Yes, sir. Oh, Rochester, Mr. Benny's going to take care of that $50. You want to make it $100 or nothing? Rochester! Now listen, Rochester, we're leaving for California tomorrow and you haven't even started to pack my trunk yet. So you better meet me bright and early. Well, what time does the train leave, boss? You ain't going to be on it.  You said you wanted to marry me and you got five girls in California. They're just bridesmaids, honey. Rochester, pay attention. Now stop at the tailor and tell him that all my cleaning must be ready by noon and see that you don't miss the train. And here's another thing. The next time you're in New York and you bend over to tie your shoe, you better have something to back it up with.   Well, you'll remember all over again, friends, the moment you taste red cherry mold, a luscious blend of rich crimson cherries and cherry jello. It's one of Jack Benny's own favorite treats and one of the easiest desserts to make you ever saw. Simply dissolve one package of jello, imitation cherry flavor in hot waters, you usually do. Chill it until slightly thickened and fold in two cups of the cherries themselves. Then finish chilling it and serve with a garnishing of outing sections and mint. You'll never taste a more attractive, more delicious dessert. Ask your grocer for a can of ripe, juicy cherries and a package of cherry jello tomorrow. And be sure you say jello because only jello's new process of locked-in flavor gives you all the flavor always. We're a little late, folks. Good night, Johnny. Friends, every time you say jello to your grocer, say jello puddings, too. Try jello vanilla pudding. Here's vanilla pudding with that real, old-fashioned flavor, a smooth, rich pudding that's gloriously creamy and not only grand as a pudding, but ideal for making cream pies, tarts and cakes with cream fillings. Not even grandma could make a pudding that tastes more homemade. And your first creamy spoonful of this swell dessert will win you at once with its delicate, mellow goodness. So tomorrow, when you order jello, ask for jello puddings, chocolate, vanilla, and butterscotch. This is the national broadcasting company. KFI in Los Angeles.


The study presents a simplified photochemical system that utilizes catalytic amounts of iron, 3, halides as multifunctional reagents and air as a green oxidant to achieve cross-coupling between strong C, SP2, H-bonds and robust C, SP3, H-bonds, with high yields and commendable chemo and site selectivity. The iron halide acts as a multifunctional reagent that responds to visible light, initiates C-centered radicals, induces single electron oxidation to carbocations and participates in a subsequent Friedel-Crafts-type process, with the gradual release of radical species and carbocation intermediates being critical for achieving desirable reactivity and selectivity. This eco-friendly, cost-efficient approach offers access to various building blocks from abundant hydrocarbon feedstocks, demonstrating the potential of iron halides in sustainable synthesis. This article was authored by Chen Youli, Shiyeng Chen, Zikeyi and others.


Item number SCP-426 Object Class Euclid Special Containment Procedures I am to be sealed in a chamber with no windows through which I may be viewed. The door to my chamber must have a label completely unrelated to my designation or identity in order to prevent unintended spread of my primary effect. Only level 3 and above personnel are to know of my presence and particularly of my properties. Assigned personnel are to be rotated out on a monthly basis to prevent contamination by my secondary effect. Psychiatric evaluation is mandatory at the end of the month. If personnel are deemed unaffected, they may be reassigned to me no less than four months after their last rotation with me. Any affected personnel are to be given Class C amnesic and transferred to a different site. Description Hello, I am SCP-426. I must be introduced this way in order to prevent ambiguity. I am an ordinary toaster able to toast bread when supplied with electricity. However, when any human being mentions me, they inadvertently refer to me in the first person. Despite all attempts, there is yet to be a way to speak or write about me in the third person. When in my continuous presence for over two months, individuals begin to identify themselves as a toaster. Unless forcibly restrained, these people will ultimately harm themselves in their attempts to emulate my standard functions. I was discovered in the home of the b***** family after the gruesome deaths of three of its members. I had been given to the younger Mr. and Mrs. b***** as a wedding gift. No card or any other identifying markers had been found on my box. Approximately two months after the family received me, fire crews were dispatched to the home due to an electrical fire. The younger Mrs. b***** died from the electric discharge that she had caused when attempting to devour an electric socket. The other two victims had died shortly before the fire occurred. The elder Mrs. b***** had gorged herself with nearly 10 kilograms of bread before her stomach burst and she died of internal bleeding. The younger Mr. b***** died of severe blood loss after attempting b***** with me. The sole survivor was the elder Mr. b***** who was suffering from severe malnutrition. He stated that he had inserted some bread a week prior and was still waiting for the toast to pop out. I was confiscated by the foundation after police noted my unusual properties. A class CM Nizek was administered to the affected officers. Experiment log 426-1. Date. Subject. D-class personnel D4261. Procedure. D4261 was asked to describe what he believed was contained in my chamber. He was not informed about my identity or properties. Details. D4261 stated, I'm probably some huge monster holed up in there. That's what you guys have all over the place, right? D4261 remained oblivious to his use of the first person pronoun. Experiment log 426-2. Date. Subject. D-class personnel D4262. Procedure. D4262 was placed in my chamber and given regular meals through a dispenser. No communication with D4262 was permitted. Multiple cameras were situated in the chamber positioned so that I am outside of their field of vision, but allowing constant observation of D4262. We remained sealed until my secondary effect manifested in the subject. I was bolted to the floor so that I could not be moved into a camera's view. Details. After 45 days of isolation, D4262 wrapped its arm around me and began conferzing with me, stating that we were brothers. D4262 never deviated from using the first person plural when speaking with me. Subject was terminated one hour after this event. It is theorized that the isolation accelerated the progression of my secondary effect. Experiment log 426-3. Date. Subject. D-class personnel D4263. Procedure. A screw was removed from me and shown to D4263, who was asked to describe it. D4263 was not informed about my identity or properties. Details. D4263 referred to it as quote, my screw, end quote. Consistent with experiment 426-1, the subject was oblivious of his use of the first person in his description. This suggests that, even if I were destroyed, my effects would still be inherent in my remains. Experiment log 426-4. Date. Subject. D-class personnel D4264. Procedure. D4264 was placed in isolation in a cell adjacent to my chamber to be observed until my secondary effect manifests. Details. No effects appeared. D4264 was terminated 90 days after the start of the experiment. Thank god there are some limits to my effects. A lot of us were really starting to get worried about me. Dr. Cl-


everyone welcome back to another vlog so this is gonna be week two of summer vacation for the Valdez family I know it kind of seems like it's more like me vlogging hi cash you can't really see him back there but he's back there and so it is June what's the date fifth it is Monday June 5th and cash and I are on our way to our first week of honeybee's adventure time summer camp so I think I mentioned it in the last vlog a little bit but my sister her name is honeybee and she runs an outdoor adventure program for kids she's also an outdoor enthusiast and specialist she's a wilderness first responder and she has her own little micro school it's like an unschool forest school if you will it's really amazing what she does and I'm so proud of her but for the summer I get to actually work as one of her staff for her summer camp and so today is day one of summer camp yesterday or not yesterday Saturday in our last vlog you guys saw that we went to just a Saturday day camp and so what baby you ate the whole piece you ate almost all of it it was good huh it's a good waffle good job eat baby oh did you drop it we'll have to get it later um so anyway that is what we're gonna be up to so throughout the summer camp time I will be videoing as much as I possibly can without destroying my phone because a lot of summer camp involves water but it's gonna be so much fun you guys are gonna see a ton of kids on camera all of them have video releases what baby okay you don't have to oh yellow light we're not going through it though so anyway we're gonna have a blast and then so we'll be at day camp from 8 in the morning to 3 p.m. every day and I'll be working for her three out of the four weeks of summer camp the last week of summer camp actually falls the same week as my return returning teacher new to the district trainings so I won't be able to go that last week but cash will be able to go so yeah so let's get this week two of summer vlogs started


Hello everyone. Thank you for listening to this talk about the exact round complexity of best of both worlds multi-party computation. I am Divya and this talk is based on a joint work with Arpita Patra and Swati Singhya. Let us now begin with what secure multi-party computation or MPC means. Suppose we have a set of n mutually distrusting parties, among which T are corrupt and controlled by a dosary. The goal is that these parties want to compute some combined function on their private inputs. Now MPC gives them a means to do so while ensuring two main properties. The first is correctness that is at the end of the MPC protocol, everyone gets the correct function output. And the next is privacy, which means that nothing beyond the function output will be revealed. So in a nutshell, you can think of MPC as a protocol which emulates the effect of having a trusted third party to whom all these parties could simply submit their inputs and get the output in return. Let me now introduce some security notions of MPC that are classified based on how robust the protocol is. The strongest and most desirable notion is guaranteed output delivery abbreviated as GOD. In such protocols, no matter what the adversary does, he cannot prevent the honest parties from obtaining the output. So basically, at the end of such protocols, everyone is guaranteed to get the output. A slightly weaker notion is fairness. Here, even though everyone is not guaranteed to get the output, but it is fair in the sense that if the corrupt parties obtain the output, then so do these honest parties. So this is basically an all or an unkind of situation where either everybody obtains the output or nobody obtains the output. And even further, we can notion is that of security with unanimous support. Such kinds of protocols can be unfair. So it is possible that the corrupt parties obtain the output while the honest parties don't. However, there is an agreement or unanimity amongst the honest parties. So the guarantee is that either all the honest parties will obtain the output or all of them will output. Lastly, the weakest security notion is that of security with selective report. Here, the adversary can get unanimity among the honest parties by selectively depriving some of them of the output. For example, here the adversary may choose that only the middle honest party should get the output while the other two don't. So in such protocols, there could be a disagreement even amongst the honest parties. Here I have listed the notions from strongest to weakest, and therefore the implications follow accordingly. That is, candidate output delivery would imply fairness, which implies unanimous abort, which in turn implies selective abort. Naturally, it is desirable to get the strongest security notions, but that may not always be feasible. In fact, there is a famous feasibility result by Cleave, which shows that it is possible to get GOD and fairness only in the honest majority setting where the adversary corrupts less than half of the total population. This means that in the dishonest majority setting where the adversary has the power to corrupt more than half of the population, the best security notion that one can hope for in this setting would be just unanimous abort. So with this background, let's move on to see what the two worlds are and what is meant by best of both worlds MPC. The two worlds are actually the world of honest majority protocols and the world of dishonest majority protocols. Both these settings have been well studied in the MPC literature and each of them have their own pros and cons. Let's begin with the world of honest majority protocols. The biggest advantage of the protocols in this setting is that it is possible for them to achieve fairness and guaranteed output delivery. But the downside is that these protocols are secure only if the adversary corrupts less than half of the total population. So suppose you run a protocol meant for honest majority and it so happens that the adversary has corrupted more than half of the total population, then all bets are off. The security would completely break down and you don't even get the basic properties of privacy or correctness. Now coming to the case of dishonest majority setting. One of the biggest advantage of the protocols is that they maintain privacy and correctness even if the adversary corrupts N minus one out of N of them. But the downside is that these protocols are designed to guarantee at best unanimous abort. So if you execute a protocol designed for dishonest majority and the adversary actually happens to corrupt only one party, still the protocol may result in abort. So this is definitely undesirable because in this particular scenario of single corruption, it was actually theoretically feasible to achieve fairness and God. So in a nutshell, the problem is that the security guarantees of the protocols in these respective settings, they are very rigid and they completely break down in the other setting. This is especially problematic in situations where you don't know in advance how many parties the adversary is going to corrupt. And in those cases it becomes difficult to decide which category of protocol to select. So ideally you would want a single protocol that is compatible with both settings of honest and dishonest majority. This is exactly what best of both world NPC offers. It is a single protocol that achieves fairness or guaranteed output delivery when the number of corruptions happens to be less than N by two. And that very same protocol would also maintain privacy and correctness and achieve the best possible guarantee of unanimous abort if it so happens that the number of corruptions is greater than or equal to N by two. So this is how best of both worlds NPC is able to combine the best properties of protocols in honest majority and the best properties of protocols in dishonest majority. This class of best of both worlds NPC was introduced by Ishae, Katz and others. And as for their definition, a best of both world protocol would be characterized with two thresholds, TNS, where T refers to the threshold for honest majority and S refers to the threshold for dishonest majority. So to get best of both worlds in the true sense, the protocol should achieve the strongest guarantee of GOD against any T less than N by two, that is in the honest majority setting. And simultaneously it should give UA against any S less than N that is in the dishonest majority setting. So we refer to these combination of simultaneous security guarantee as GOD UA best of both worlds. Now, while this combination is indeed ideal, but unfortunately, the above works of Ishae and others showed that the ideal GOD UA best of both worlds is possible only if the number of parties is strictly greater than the sum of thresholds S and T. So they showed that if this condition does not hold, then it is not possible to design a poly-time protocol that achieves GOD against T corruptions and UA against S corruptions simultaneously. Subsequently, there were works which explode if this constraint could be circumvented. So to get around this constraint, it is natural that you have to weaken the security in either the honest or the dishonest majority setting. So there were many such attempts out of which I'll highlight a couple of them. In this first work in 2010, they showed that if you are ready to settle for fairness and honest majority instead of guaranteed output delivery, then it is possible to get best of both worlds MPC for any T less than N by two and S less than N. And particularly this constraint of N greater than S plus T can be avoided. So we refer to this notion as fair UA best of both worlds that achieves the second best guarantee of fairness in honest majority and continues to get the best guarantee of UA in dishonest majority. There were also other attempts which weakened the security in the dishonest majority setting. So in one such work, they showed that if you allow the adversary to obtain S evaluations of the function with different choices of inputs of the corrupt parties in the dishonest majority setting, then you can still avoid this condition of N greater than S plus T. So such view best of both world protocols, they give the best in honest majority that is GOD, but they give this weakened security notion, which is somewhat similar to residual security in dishonest majority. In our work, we focused on two classes of best of both world protocols. The first is the fair UA best of both worlds where we do not have any constraint on N except these natural bounds of T being less than N by two and S being less than N. So we chose to study this class as we felt that this relaxation is quite meaningful and fairness is almost as good as guaranteed output delivery for many practical applications where a rational adversary would not want to fail. The honest parties at the expense of losing his own output. The second class that we looked at is the ideal best of both worlds that is GOD UA best of both world protocols. Here, apart from these natural bounds on T and S, we also assumed that N is greater than S plus T in order to adhere to this feasibility result. So to be more specific in our work, we looked at the exact round complexity of those two classes of best of both world protocols. Before I present our results, let's look at what is known about the exact round complexity of the individual settings of honest and dishonest majority. So we considered three popular kinds of setup. The first is the plain model where no setup is assumed. The second is the CRS model where we assume that the parties have access to a common random or reference string at the beginning of the protocol. And the third category is the CRS plus PKI model where we assume that the parties have access to a public infrastructure in addition to the CRS. So an honest majority for the plain and CRS model, three rounds are known to be necessary and sufficient for fairness and guaranteed output delivery. However, in the model with PKI, two rounds is known to be optimal for these two security notions of fairness and guaranteed output delivery. Next, coming to the case of dishonest majority for selective and unanimous abort, four rounds are known to be necessary and sufficient in the plain model. However, in these other two setups of CRS and CRS plus PKI, two is known to be the optimal round complexity for these security notions with abort. Our goal was to study the exact round complexity for these two classes of best of both world protocols in these three different types of setup. One trivial observation is that any lower bound for the individual settings of honest and dishonest majority would translate to a lower bound for best of both worlds. That is because the best of both world guarantees are strictly stronger and they subsume the individual guarantees in honest and dishonest majority setting. Therefore, if you just take the maximum of the lower bounds of honest majority and dishonest majority, that would already give you a lower bound for best of both worlds. But this may not be tight because it may be the case that best of both world NPC requires more number of rounds. First, we considered the class of fair UA best of both worlds and here we showed that five is the lower bound for the plain model and three is the lower bound for the other two types of setup. So among these lower bounds, the lower bound in the CRS model is directly implied from the lower bound in the honest majority setting for fairness. However, for the other two setup of plain model and CRS plus PKI, these lower bounds were not directly implied and they were in fact new. And I would be elaborating on these arguments shortly. Coming to the upper bounds now, most of them are compiler based and for this upper bound of fair UA best of both worlds, we designed a compiler that transforms any R round UA protocol in dishonest majority into an R plus one round fair UA best of both world protocols. So if you use this compiler on the round optimal UA protocols in dishonest majority, then you would automatically obtain the round optimal fair UA best of both world protocols. So in order to use this compiler, we observed that in the CRS and CRS plus PKI setting, there were already existing two round constructions that were achieving UA. So we could just directly plug in those constructions into the compiler in order to get our matching upper bounds for CRS and CRS plus PKI. However, for the plain model, we observed that the existing four round constructions only achieved the weaker security notion of selective robot. So for this, we showed how the existing four round constructions could be boosted to obtain unanimous robot and then our compiler could be applied in order to yield this five round optimal upper bound. So this completes the picture of the exact round complexity of fair UA best of both worlds and all these bounds are shown to be tight. Next, we looked at the GOD UA best of both world protocols where the lower bounds are four, three and two for the respective settings. So here the lower bound for the plain and the PKI model, they directly follow from the existing lower bounds for UA in dishonest majority. Next, regarding this three round lower bound in the CRS model, we observed that it followed from the three round lower bound for GOD in the CRS setting for honest majority for most cases of NSMP. However, there was a small gap because this lower bound of three does not hold for some special cases like n greater than or equal to four and t equal to one. So in order to close this gap, we showed that even for these special cases where you can in fact get two round GOD protocols in honest majority, even for those cases you would still need three rounds to get GOD UA best of both worlds. So this completes the picture of the lower bounds and in terms of the upper bounds, we could show tightness of the upper bounds in the CRS and CRS plus PKI model. And for this, we designed compilers which start from the two round UA protocols of GS18 and BL18 in the CRS setting in dishonest majority. And we used our compiler to transform them into the round optimal protocols of three and two in the respective settings of CRS and CRS plus PKI. Lastly, coming to the plain model, we constructed a five round upper bound for the GOD UA best of both worlds. So as you can see, there is a gap of one round here which is left open as four rounds are known to be necessary and we showed five rounds to be sufficient. So for this upper bound, we built on some ideas of the work of BL18 which has a compiler from K round OT to K plus one round NPC. So their compiler was for the dishonest majority setting and we modified it to meet the demands of best of both worlds and to get guaranteed output delivery in honest majority. Though this construction is not round optimal, it interestingly turned out to be more challenging than our other upper bounds. For the details, I refer to the paper. So this actually completes the overview of our results where we nearly settled the exact round complexity of these two classes of best of both world protocols and for these three different kinds of setup. In the rest of the talk, I am going to elaborate on our lower bound result for fair UA best of both world NPC. The crux of the argument is that any round fair UA best of both worlds can be transformed into an R minus one round Oblivious Transfer or OT protocol. So the proof is via contradiction to show a lower bound of five rounds in the plane model. We begin with the assumption that there is a four round fair UA best of both world protocol in the plane model between these three parties P1, P2 and P3. We call the security guarantees of this class of protocols. This would mean that the protocol should be fair when t equal to one and it should achieve unanimous support in the dishonest majority case, which corresponds to s equal to two. Next, suppose that this three party protocol is used to compute this specific three party function, which details of which I will describe in just one minute. Now the overall idea is to transform this four round best of both world protocol to a three round OT protocol between a sender PS and a receiver PR. Let us quickly recall what the OT functionality looks like. So it involves the sender having input as two messages and not an M1 and the receiver has an input choice bit C. And the output is that the receiver obtains the message of his choice MC while the sender has no output. Let's now look at how this transformation works. So we assume that there is a four round best of both world protocol. Let's call it pie between these three parties P1, P2 and P3. Here the input of P1 is a pair of messages and not an M1, which is similar to the input of an OT sender. Next, the input of P2 is a choice bit C, which is similar to the input of the OT receiver. And additionally P2 also has a random string R2 as input. And lastly the input of P3 is a random string R3. Now the function is defined such that the output of the function for P2 and P3 is MC while the output for P1 is the sum of these random strings R2 plus R3. Now consider an execution of pie where all the parties behave honestly and suppose that this is how the interaction amongst the parties looks like in an all honest execution. Next, we look at a scenario where P1 is corrupt. So suppose he behaves honestly until round three and he simply remains silent in the last round. So this is the manner in which P1 misbehaves. So in this situation, there would be no outgoing messages from P1 in the last round, but he would receive the incoming messages. Now it's clear that despite his misbehavior, P1 should be able to obtain the output because his view is similar to the view of an honest P1 in an execution where everyone behaved honestly. So therefore due to the correctness of the protocol, we can conclude that P1 obtains the output R2 plus R3. Next recall that pie achieves fairness against a single corruption. So here in this scenario of a single corruption of P1 where he managed to get the output, we can conclude that P2 and P3 should also obtain the output MC in order to maintain fairness. So this leads us to the claim that the combined view of P2 and P3 at the end of round three itself should be sufficient to compute MC. This is because in round four, they only interact amongst themselves and they do not receive any new information from P1 after round three. So we now build on this claim to transform this four round protocol pie to a three round OT protocol. So in this three round protocol, the sender PS emulates the role of P1 in pie while the receiver PR would pick random inputs R2 and R3 and emulate the role of P2 and P3 using his input bit fee. So in some more detail, what PS will do is that he will use his inputs M0 and M1 and then he would send those messages similar to what P1 would send in pie to P2 and P3. On the other hand, what PR would do is that he would send messages according to the protocol pie based on whatever P2 and P3 would have sent to P1. So now the claim is that these three rounds of the protocol in this transformation is actually a secure OT protocol. So for this, we first observe that the receiver PR will be able to compute the output MC at the end of these three rounds. This is because the view of PR is similar to the combined view of P2 and P3 at the end of round three of pie. And from the previous claim, we already know that that was sufficient to compute the correct output MC. So we can conclude that this three rounds should result in PR obtaining MC. Next, we analyze security against a corrupt sender. So say PS is corrupt and as per OT security, we need to make sure that he learns nothing about the choice bit C of the honest receiver. Now, this can be argued because the corrupt PS in this OT protocol translates to P1 being corrupt in pie and the scenario of T equal to one. And in this case, we know that pie is secure and that P1 would learn nothing beyond R2 plus R3, which leads nothing about C. Similarly, security when PR is corrupt can be argued because this translates to the case where P2 and P3 are corrupt in pie and s equal to two. So by those security guarantees, we know that PR would not be able to learn anything beyond his output MC. And in particular, he cannot learn the other message of the sender, which is M1 minus C. So we can now conclude that this is indeed a secure OT protocol. However, note that this OT is actually bidirectional because in each round, both the sender and the receiver are sending messages. So we now apply a transformation which was there in the recent result. So here they showed how to transform a K round bidirectional OT to a K round alternating OT. So when we apply this transformation, we would get a three round protocol of this form where each round involves a message only in a single direction. So now we are finally arrived at a three round alternating OT protocol that is secure in the plain model. And this gives us a final contradiction because such a three round alternating OT in the plain model with black box simulation is known to be impossible by this result of 2006. So this completes the low amount argument for five rounds in the plain model and we use a similar argument for the PKI model as well. So to summarize, the main takeaway is that best of both world MPC protocols are best fit for situations where you do not know in advance how many parties the adversary is going to corrupt. And further, in terms of round complexity, our results show that best of both world MPC is actually not at all demanding. And the exact round complexity of both these classes of best of both world protocols turned out to be either the same or at most one more than the maximum of the needs in the honest majority setting and dishonest majority setting. With this, I conclude my talk and thank you very much for listening.


When you have a strong intimidating personality people can pass you off as being rude and lacking respect But what it truly means is that you know who you are and you will never allow yourself to be worked over by anyone Others may think you love to dominate but too often this isn't so People will not understand you until they get closer to you and they get to know you better People with such strong and intimidating personality have the self-confidence that helps them hide the best of themselves Until they are sure they can absolutely trust those close to them some others can be afraid of you But it is because they do not understand how you can be so comfortable with yourself Never letting your guard down and never allowing yourself to be pushed around if you have the following traits Then they are signs you have a strong intimidating personality one you don't put up with excuses Excuses are for people who are going nowhere because you understand this you fight excuses first in your life and wherever you recognize Excuses in others you don't tolerate them if others know better than to give you excuses when you request something from them Then your personality may be strong and intimidating when your personality is strong and intimidating You are much more interested in what you can do and the hodos you can overcome to get those things done It doesn't matter how big those hodos are you fight to overcome until you win if you are this way You don't have to berate yourself for hating to make excuses You just hate to give reasons why things cannot get done To you are careful about who you let into your life because you have healthy self-esteem And you know where you are going you are very careful about the kind of people you allow into your life and the kind of Relationships you get into it isn't that you are obnoxiously antisocial You just naturally love to choose your cycle you would rather be alone than have worms in your life You don't need people to tell who you are and what you are capable of Others may need this kind of compliments to feel alive and whole but you don't depend on others opinions about you to keep Your self-confidence alive since you know who you are even if you're still in the process of discovering everything about yourself You don't wait for others to tell you what you can do and can't do you know You are capable and you go for it free you hate small talk if there's anything you hate It is people wasting your time with small talks You love people to go straight to the point when they are talking with you because what's the point of beating about the bush? Because you have strong personality you have countless ideas.  You are not intending to intimidate others with your knowledge No, you just want to use it to inspire others to think before they speak Five you know how to listen listening is an art. It must be learned if you have a strong personality You know how to listen others might mistake this for something else However, since you know you are in charge of yourself You do not let what others believe about you to deter you from being who you are Moreover, your listening ability is focused on hearing people's thoughts so you can know how to help them Six you do not need attention if you have a strong personality You don't crave attention as others do you are not clingy or needy and when the door of a relationship closes You don't go back banging on that door because you can't stand alone because of this You naturally attract people to yourself people love to hang out with you not because you spend so much time Socializing but because they love to be around you no matter the attention people shower on you However, you don't stop to take breaks to be alone with yourself when you learn to take care of yourself You will find it easy to take care of others Seven you are fearless being fearless does not mean you are afraid of nothing It just means you go after what you fear without letting the fear hold you back from doing what you have to do You identify what you are afraid of and instead of backing down you choose to go after that thing you are afraid of You never let fear dictate for you what you should do eight you take insecurity as an opportunity Others may be afraid to be insecure, but not you you choose insecurity as an opportunity to get better You do not focus so much on what you can't do but rather on what you can do Insecurity about a thing you want to do does not hold you back It encourages you to try you do not claim to know it all But you know your greatest regrets will be to have never tried what you could have so you do what you have to do People may be insecure, but you will never let this insecurity hold you back from leaving your true life Your personality may intimidate people it may make people think you are too full of yourself But in truth you just cannot stand people being lesser than they should be you love to see people become a better individual Releasing their potentials and becoming their best Nine you are led more by reason than emotions because you are thoughtful and well informed You do not make decisions based on emotions, but true reason you succumb to your instinct But you allow that only to have taught through the problem The logical part of your brain has the most power and influence in your decision making than your emotional side You may have noticed this about yourself You do not like to see people not leveraging the amount of information available to them You are learned because you have value for information Which is why you tend to be so rational in your decision-making than emotional 10 your goal oriented Do you find you can't leave without goals? Do you find you are always focusing on words to be achieved rather than wasting your time away If you have a strong personality You love to have firm control over your future and so you set goals for yourself that drive you towards that future of success You have envisioned for yourself. You don't lose sight of your vision no matter what comes your way You may bend, but you get right back on your path to succeed in you set smart realistic Goals to achieve a great future for yourself 11 you don't dwell on the past We all have pasts all that matters is if we let the past control us or if we control the past You never let the past control you the best is in the past The past is in the past. It's gone and nothing you do will ever change it You know this so you don't bother your head worrying about the past You are instead interested in the present what is happening now and how that will affect your future You allow your goals to drive you and not your past 12 you learn from your mistakes Everyone makes mistakes, but because you don't act like you do people may mistake you for a perfect human You are not a perfect human being you make mistakes just like everyone, but you learn from your mistakes You don't dwell on them You know it's already happened and it's needless trying to worry over spilled milk You always focus on lessons you can grasp from your mistakes and how you can quickly move on from there 13 you stick to your word your word is your bond when you have a strong personality Why because you would not promise what you can't do and also you never get Intimidated into promising things you cannot do people can count on you because you do what you promise to do It isn't like you've never changed your mind about what you've said But because you are thoughtful you always love to back up your words with actions and you readily admit your mistakes in words When you make it 14 you don't need anybody's approval It's great to have people's approval, but with a strong Intimidating personality like us you don't wait around for approval while others may expect people to wipe them on the rare You don't do that to get things done You are quick in making your decisions and you are determined to follow through your decisions No matter the stance of others about it.  We love you


Hopefully everyone's all excited on this lovely Wednesday. Beautifully here in New York, disgusting in Florida. I hope some prayers for all of you down there in Florida. I can't believe you guys are going to hit with some massive hurricane. Hopefully everybody's safe. I know Josh had the move yesterday. He was actually right in the thick of it, not too far from Tampa.  He's down there in Naples, Florida. One of our other gurus here, you know, at media pub and stuff like that. And, you know, part of our group of traders and stuff. So I know there's some of you here. I moved down there. I know most of you on the West Coast, so, no, East Coast. I'm sorry. So hopefully everybody's safe. So our prayers for all of you guys be safe. And hopefully it's not going to be as bad as, you know, I don't know. I would try to hope for the best and prepare for the worst. That's how I look at it. But in the meantime, there's been a lot of stuff going on the market. We saw what happened yesterday. We did an advanced class yesterday. The morning was a great class that we've done. We saw a lot of good winners, a lot of good movers in the morning. The afternoon kind of stunk. There was really nothing. It was probably one of the slowest lessons that I've ever trained in a long time.  Some of those days are actually very good to see that there's nothing going on. You don't jump into it. But there were a couple of stocks that did move. We'll go through them. I know some of you did jump on the bandwagon on this ABOS. This thing was just a great mover this morning. It started pretty early though at 7 o'clock with program training kicked in. And then you can see around 7 30 program training kicked in again. So I know when usually everyone usually jumps in around this time between 7 30 and 8 o'clock, you know, went from 8 25 up to about 9 75. So a little bit of a nice mover, really good move early in the morning. They're at 7 a.m. though. But there was a few other ones that did move. We'll check them out in a little bit. We'll talk about them. Really nice iceberg orders on that stock. We'll show you that in the next few moments. But let's go over what happened yesterday because there were a couple of stocks that we did make some nice moves. And I just want to touch upon them. You had this little cheap one right here. This XFOR, slow, you know, nice level one stock. This is something for some of you, the beginners that really, you know, got a cold feed or get a little nervous. You could trade something cheap, very inexpensive. Also, this was another not an expensive stock to the XNR had a nice move low from 5 50 up to 6 25. That wasn't that bad. I mean, you could see it less than an hour and a half had about almost a nice 50 50 set move right there. This stock, you know, made a big pop early and then it kind of died. We saw this one early to 80 TX, but you could see like after that 3 30 she really didn't go anywhere. Blue Apron was awesome yesterday. We did that. We did this one yesterday in the morning hours. And this was pretty much a kind of like a very nice, easy going stock. Vime was picking up nice and slow. It was going up nice and consistently. We ran from about 4 60 all the way up to about 5 40. You know what 1000 shares, 80 cents, 800 bucks, you know, not bad. Even if you got half that, you did pretty well. Couple of ones did pretty well. BTU is also very well low on the expense of side. A lot of energy stocks did pretty well yesterday. This one also was a nice moving stock, ATXI. But this stock was just a very, very fast moving stock. It got halted so many times once came out of the gate at 9 30 went from 5 50. You can see it just got halted, halted, halted. Went all the way to about $11 a share. That one was fabulous. I know you guys did really well on the side of the group room. PXMD was another nice little stock early in the morning. You can see how that thing also nice little pop. I mean, there was a lot of good stocks that move. And last but not least, Coles actually did move pretty well too. $250 stock. You can see it's an ETF. This thing got crushed, you know. So there was some good stocks. But like I said, the afternoon really wasn't that great. Now, once again, let's turn the page. Let's move on. Let's talk what's going on for today. What is the big news? What's going on? The hurricane. Okay. And, you know, unfortunately, catastrophes like this do make certain stocks move in the market. So I told you this yesterday. I'm going to bring it up again. Home Depot. I want you to keep an eye on it. That's, you know, these stocks have more like swing trade. She is up already about four bucks. Generac. Didn't do too well yesterday, even though I liked it. But you know what? She's up a little bit today. Lowe's. Another one. And the one thing I like about Home Depot is that if you look right here, it is at a major support levels right here right around this $250 price range. I know it pays a pretty decent dividend. But you know what? This hurricane, you got to keep in mind, is the damage that it's going to do to Florida. I mean, anyone have any idea how much money and damage I think it's going to do in Florida? I put a price tag of almost a trillion dollars. I mean, between, think about it, for every home that's on the water, there are about five to 10 million on the average, right? How many homes are going up all up that west coast? How many of those houses in the midtown? I think it's going to be really catastrophic. So, you know, as much as you're going to have that a lot of damage. And then also, look at all the cars. How are you going to replace this area of shortage in cars? All those cars, listen, I went through it. Some of you never probably went through it, but I went through living here in New York with Hurricane Sandy.  And that was the start of New York Stock Exchange changing to more like the Nasdaq, more electronically. But like all those areas, so like, trust me, there's going to be a lot of money and damage. You got to fix that stuff. And if you look at so many histories of some of those stocks that benefit from it, Home Depot did clean up. Especially, it wasn't even the hurricane that was bad for us. It was the Superstorm Sandy that did the huge damage of what you might call it, of the surge, you know, the surge of the water that just came up. We had like 15 feet, I mean, buried everything. And then not only that, but we were shut down for like two, three weeks. Couldn't get gas, couldn't get anything.  You know, you try to be like a good Samaritan. People wouldn't care. It was like, it was almost like the purge. I swear to God. So hopefully it won't be, you know, hopefully people respect people down in Florida because of that. But there's going to be a lot of work that's got to be done. There's going to be a lot of fixing going on. So some of these stocks will benefit from it. So if you're looking for some swing trades, look for that. You went through five and 40 years, but nothing like this, Grant. Yeah, I know, especially you're down in Ohio.  My God, Grant, look at all those boats down there. I mean, I'm watching on TV.  I mean, that's the yacht's capital of the world. I mean, those things are what? 10 million, 30 million?  They just keep pounding and pounding and pounding. Anyway, we hope everyone the best in Florida. But like, once again, there are some stocks out there. You could probably benefit from it. Anyway, let's move on. And you know what? I don't know how the insurance company's going to do.  I'm going to look at them and see what they're going to do to have to come up and pay for that stuff. But they're going to take a very, very big hit. But someone always told me a very funny lesson a long time ago. No matter all the catastrophes that we had, you ever notice that an insurance company never goes out of business? It's the funniest thing, which is ironic. All right. Anyway, let's go. What's going on? Let's move this morning. So we got the ABOS on the stock. I just want to bring this up. There was a huge iceberg order that just showed up right around here on 840. Looks like he just pulled his order right here. You know, the only thing about the ABOS, it doesn't trade that much volume. Tears size are pretty small. Looks like she's starting to back off. Once that seller pulled his order, he started seeing a thing started going back down. It is up a lot, which I'm not a very big fan of, when that up substantial in pre-market, and they start dwindling down. So we'll see how they open up. Here's another stock I found, but I thought it was a little kind of expensive. I don't want to jump in and spend a $50 stock. Bath is doing awesome. This thing just looked like it just popped. Yeah, somebody came out there and bought it. Look at the volume just picked in. Program trading we know kicks in around 10 a.m. But BA is B-I-A-F. What a nice move on that one. Look at the orders. Look at the volume. It just kicked in right there. What a nice move on that stock right there. It was a late bloomer. It came in a little bit late. You could see it right here. It just started around 830. And now you can see it's starting to make its big move right there. So nice little pop, new IPO. You could see that that looks pretty good too. So interesting. The only bad thing is that there's not that much data to work off. So we know that we need that. This stock is way too expensive. This stock started trending down already. This one, $300,000. Not bad. SOBR. Program trading just kicked in at $1.40. He ran at $2.00. Wow. Look at that. $26,000 share buyer out there on Archipelago. Not bad. Looks like he's getting hit a little bit. I got to check on level four. Let's call it SOBR. SOBR. SOBR. Bath has just got a big buyer. It just showed in. Bath just had a big iceberg or it just showed up and the thing just popped. Look at that. She just made a big move right there. Bath is looking awesome. Stock was $16.00. All we did to support level around $2.00. Really nice move on that bath. So far, listen, we only need one. This one also looks pretty good. Like I said, the SOBR. We got that one over there. 22%. Tops. Top shipping. You know tops. You got to be careful with this stock. I don't know.   And we know shipping companies are making a fortune. I don't understand why it's not affecting the stock though. OCGN, we traded the stock last year back in October from $7.00 to $17.00. That one looks pretty decent. Good volume, good tier sizes. Look at that. We're already at 11. We're still at 13%. That's not bad.  Get a nice little crush in the end. We know why this thing's coming down. You can scrap that out. No good bottom fishings here. New York Stock Exchange. 9% biggest gainer. Eli Lilly doing great. Wow. Look at that. Pharmaceutical stock doing pretty well. The other ones. Blue Apron was pretty good yesterday too, by the way. We did that. That was one. Even though we did well on it and she's up about 4%, not really that impressed. I don't really see anything on the New York Stock Exchange. Just a bath. Bath looks pretty good. We bring level four here and show you what I saw. Big iceberg order just showed up right around here. You can see how it's starting to go back up. So bath is looking awesome. So we'll have fun with that one. All right, anything I'm missing, I did not call out. Oh, is that what it is? Do you have poise of Alzheimer's study? Is that why that stock took a big run up? All right. Well, looks like it's doing pretty good right there, Neil. Anyone else? Any other stocks I'm missing? I think we got a pretty good stock. We got a good move. I really like that stock. Bath moving up really, really nice. Late bloomer too. Look at that. Started late. So you showed up a little late in pre-market. You jumped in. You're doing pretty well. So since nine o'clock this morning when we started, we're at $3. Boom. We're already at 360. Not bad for a day's pay. All right. So listen, we got class today. We got phase three, okay? Lesson three and four till last day. So if you're a student, I'll see you all in there. Rich just posted it in the trading room. If you're on YouTube, Facebook live, you're watching this. You want to find out more about the classes and see how we trade these stocks and understand about level four. Just like us and friend us. Just send us an email to do a trial. But if you're a student here, I'll see you in there. If you're not going to be joining us, just remember everyone, don't be in class and trade the same time. Remember, we got to focus on these stocks that are moving education. We only do X amount of classes a month.  There's always new ones that come up all the time. So anyway, good luck today. Happy trading. Be safe. And wish everybody in Florida the best. And just, you know, our prayers are out to you. Hopefully you're all going to do the right thing. And, you know, hopefully you're in a safe place. All right. Good luck, everyone. Happy trading. I'll see you in a little bit when the market opens up.


Hello everyone, I'm Paul Lewis. I'm coming to you live from Amsterdam and I have with me Bob Dodd aka the Doddle Max as I call him You can call him Rob Dodson. Whatever you like Rob, you did a talk today on accessibility Which I sat with you while I sat there watching And I was sort of thinking you know be great to kind of summarize for people who are watching this Just kind of the one thing or the one group of things you'd have them do if they're completely new to accessibility Yeah, so I think if you're if you're totally new to accessibility The one thing that for me was was really useful It felt like kind of a transition point for me was actually sitting down and learning to use a screen reader So if you're on a Mac voiceover is just there. It's free if you're on Windows. You can use in VDA. It's also free You just download it. It's open source and the reason why is because I feel like it's one thing to be adding You know attributes and semantic elements and sort of thinking maybe you're doing the right thing It's another thing entirely to actually fire up that screen reader and then navigate the page and verify like cool I'm doing I'm using the tool and and I can see that it's working properly with my code. So that is that is a So even then so let's say you do that and you're like wow, I've got accessibility issues Like do we have any kind of cheat sheet or wave for somebody to kind of go? Hey, you know what what things are expected from me if I'm making a checkbox or I'm making my own magical whatever thing Yeah, so for that we have the web content accessibility guidelines or WCAG, which is I know it's very very fancy sounding. Yeah, and The which is this it's amazingly huge document. I should say it's an amazing and huge document That covers really like what it is for something to be accessible and it's built almost in like a checklist fashion But it's very very very detailed covers a lot of things And so what's what's useful is there's a group called web aim which has taken that and Distilled it down to a much sort of easier to follow checklist specifically for web developers The nice thing about learning this is that a lot of governments actually mandate WCAG compliance for For applications and things like that. So this is like the definitive source Like if you want to know what a checkbox should do This is the thing it'll tell you the keyboard support that it should have it also tell you all the aria stuff That it needs to have so so that's definitely the resource to go to the web aim checklist And when you need to you can drop into the WCAG to get those super super meaty details And then I guess last but not least there's obviously there's lots of tools There's lots of resources. There's lots of things that you could read besides that checklist that could actually help you out on a day-to-day with your workflow Kind of where would you point people towards if they completely need to this? Where would you actually send them to actually learn more? Yeah, so Conveniently enough Alice Boxholt.  So definitely go check that out And then the other thing too is is we're gonna actually start putting more accessibility content on developers that Google.com web So that's a that's a plan for us to start Writing more about it and making sure that that you know when we're talking about progressive web apps We're talking about performance. We're also talking about accessibility making sure that that is a part of everybody's process Brilliant. Well, that's all we've got time for we're gonna chuck some links down into the description below We should include I guess the Udacity course and all the other things that we've talked about here Thank you so much for taking a bit of time out and I've been Paul catch you next time


Three ways to not waste your singleness. Number one, focus on pouring into friendship's value quality over quantity here. Proverbs 12-26 says, The righteous choose their friends carefully, but the way of the wicked leads them astray.   Your life doesn't begin when you get in a relationship. It begins now. Three is seek the Lord and walk intentionally with him. Because ultimately that's the most important relationship you will ever have.