If you look on a Missouri state map, in the southwestern part you'll find a small dot. What does this tiny town, liberal Missouri, have to do with morals and the existence of God? We'll find out what happens when you try to remove God from a culture. In this episode of Origins, you'll see not only the consequences and fruits of atheism, but also how you can prove that God really does exist. Coming up on today's edition of Origins, an experiment in infidelity with Dr. Brad Herob. Oh, and welcome to Origins. I'm Ray Hypole. It's an honor to be your host today. During this program, we showcase interesting guests who present evidence from science, along with other important facts, validating the truth of creation and the accuracy of the Bible. Today's guest, Dr. Brad Herob, holds a degree in biology and a doctorate degree in anatomy and neurobiology from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee. Currently, he serves as the executive director of Focus Press and co-editor of THINK Magazine. Dr. Herob travels the world speaking on Christian evidences, fortifying the family, and cultural apologetics. Welcome to the program, Brad. Hey, it's great to be here, Ray. We are glad to have you. We're going to have an experiment in infidelity. That could mean a lot of things. Absolutely, absolutely. What are we going to be doing exactly? I want to take you to a little town called Liberal, Missouri. It is a real town today, population less than 1,000 people. A town that was founded in 1910, gentlemen by the name of George Walser, born in the 1800s. He actually founded Liberal, Missouri.  You've got the downtown Main Street. You've got all the different aspects, liberal news. One of the interesting things when you start looking at the street signs, you're going to notice they're a little different than a lot of, you know, you don't see the General Maple Avenue or Main Street. Instead, you see Darwin or Ingersoll or all of these folks who were skeptics, unbelievers, evolutionists, that kind of thing. The reason why is because George Walser wanted a city without any kind of religion. And so he quite literally put out ads and newspapers saying, hey, we want anybody who doesn't like religion, doesn't want, you know, Christianity, no Bible in our city. And that's how they were founded. Wow. I've never heard of this. It's a fascinating. When you actually do the study, what you discover is they had lots and lots of saloons, lots of bars, as you can imagine, not a lot of things like hospitals, things that Christians are kind of known for as far as caring for people. At one point, they even put barbed wire around the city because missionaries were saying, hey, we need to go and convert those people. And Walser said, no, we don't want that. But when you read all of the history, what you discover is this was quite literally a failed experiment in infidelity. And what I mean by that is by the end, there was so much crime, so much just chaos that they were quite literally begging Christians to come in and start churches in their city. And so what you got is you have a real life example of what happens when you take God out of a city or a culture. George Walser, he quite literally showed us, if you remove God, you're going to implode. You know, that's fascinating because we are made in the image of God. We are moral creatures and to try to deny that foundation and not expect, you know, the immorality that came from it. I mean, absolutely. And think about this, Ray, when you look at what's going on in America today, with us removing God from schools and the town square and basically at this stage in our history, the only place that they want God is in a church building. And even then they're starting to kind of inch into that. And you start looking at what happened at liberal Missouri and you realize, wow, you know, how long until we implode or we start circling the drain, so to speak. Yeah, I think more and more that we are headed in the wrong direction and Christianity is not only ignored or not like, but actually attacked. I've seen that more and more across the board, as far as media and institutions. Christianity in a lot of ways and what the Bible teaches is considered evil or hate or something like that. Absolutely. You asked the question, what is the fruit of atheism? You know, what was it that George Walser and that little town, what did they discover with their experiment? Well, the fruit of atheism, if you stop and think about it, is the opposite of Christianity. Christianity is teaching things like love. It's teaching things like don't steal, don't lie. On the screen, you'll notice this is a crime clock that displays how often things are happening here. And, you know, ultimately, this is the fruit of atheism. This is the fruit of unbelief. You think about what does the Bible teach? The Bible says, don't steal. If you're in a town where there there is no God, there's no morality, then what makes stealing? Somebody's horse or somebody's car or somebody's phone. Ultimately, the Bible over and over is reminding us there is a God. There is a moral code. Ephesians chapter four, verse twenty eight, let him who steal steal no longer, but rather let him labor, working with his hands. What is good that he may have something to give him who has needs. So not only don't steal, but also take care of those who may not be able to provide for themselves. You know, evolution on the other hand is teaching survival of the fittest. I love that passage in Ephesians, because I like to remind my congregants that, you know, the Bible actually commands us to be responsible for ourselves, to work, to provide our own living and even to the point where we can help others who are not able to for various reasons. But, you know, it's really the opposite of stealing. You are to provide for others rather than to take from others. Absolutely. So the question before us today is, is there a God? You know, should America be formed around this idea that God doesn't exist, that he's not real? Ultimately, this is probably the greatest question that both our culture and the world can answer because the answer to that single question affects everything else. If there really is a supreme being, then you and I are here for a purpose. Our life has meaning. If there's not a God, then ultimately we're just here by mistake. Yeah. How could anybody force a view on anyone else of morality of, hey, it's wrong to do that or it's right to do this? You know, we're all randomly generated accidents. Right. Right. Fortunate mistakes of countless biochemical morons. Yeah. So there is no good. There is no evil.  That's right. That's right. I want to go up to the board and talk a little bit about how do we prove there really is a God? You know, if I were an atheist, how would you prove that? Yes, there really is a God. And what I mean by that is. You can't measure him in a lab, so to speak. We know that atheists are evangelizing, so to speak, our young people. I grabbed this off of an atheistic website. Notice Ray says, no God, no guilt. The belief in God awakens fanaticism and guilt. Live free and responsible. Debaptize yourself. Wow.  No guilt. Just, you know, you can do whatever you want. But we only carry that out. No guilt for murder, no guilt for rape, no guilt for torture. Absolutely. Yeah. You know, if I were to ask you, can we prove that Abraham Lincoln really live? Because neither one of us saw him. We weren't alive at that time. Or if you've never been overseas to see the Great Wall of China, how do we know for sure that that actually exists? And the answer is we have evidence. We have images of Abraham Lincoln. We have his writings as far as the Great Wall of China. You put me on a computer that's got internet connection. And I can actually be looking at it from a satellite in three or four minutes. So we know we can prove these things. But let's be honest, God is a spirit. The Bible says those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. So we can't take him into a laboratory. A lot of times we hear about the scientific method, something being observable, measurable, repeatable. But if we can't use our five senses, if we can't see, taste, smell, touch or hear him, then how do we prove there really is a God? What I want to do is I want to give you three ways that hopefully the viewers can not only remember, but maybe share them with their children, their coworkers, their friends. Three things that we can use to basically prove there really is a God. First thing, we got to clear up. A lot of folks say, well, you know, if you can't measure in a lab, it's not real. But Ray, there's lots of things that we can't measure in a laboratory. I spent a lot of time in laboratories at Vanderbilt University, University of Tennessee. And one of the interesting things that I know from my background in neurology, all humans have a conscience. But you can't drop a probe into the brain and say, right here, this is where the conscience is. Now, we know it exists. Same thing with love. How would you measure love in a laboratory? We all know exist, right?  You're getting big trouble. We know that it does exist. The question is, OK, if that's the case, then how do we know or how can we measure these other things? Three ways that I would encourage you to maybe write down. Think about number one, the cosmological argument. And I would point out, don't get lost in the big words here. This is simply the cause and effect argument. The second one, anthropological argument, that is the existence of morals and last, the teleological argument, and that is design. If it were me and I was trying to prove the existence of God, I have four children, I would simply walk them outside, point up to the night sky and simply say, how do you explain all that? Because my children can see the moon. They can see the stars. They know that that stuff is real. And so then the question is, all right, where did it come from? Ultimately, there's only three logical possibilities. Possibility number one is that everything we see out there. All the stars, everything is eternal, meaning it is always existed and it will forever exist. The second option is that it's not eternal, but rather it popped into existence from nothing. The last option is that the universe is not eternal. It didn't pop into existence from nothing, but rather it was created. As we look at each one of those, the first one we know today is totally unscientific. And what I mean by that is we know the universe is not eternal. It's expanding. The two guys who proved that the universe is expanding, Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble of Hubble Telescope fame, they showed that the universe is actually growing, which means it had to have a beginning. And in fact, even evolutionists today will admit this fact. Robert Jastrow says the lingering decline predicted by astronomers for the end of the world differs from the explosive conditions that they have calculated for its birth, but the impact, he says, is the same. He says modern science denies an eternal existence to the universe, either in the past or the future. And so basically, option number one, it's no good. We got to throw it out. What about option number two? Well, what about this idea that it just spring into existence from nothing? As crazy as that sounds, realistically, that's evolutionists only options. I was having a Bible study with a gentleman one time and long story short, he said, you know, I believe that there was nothing here. And when I asked him, OK, what went bang, he looked at me, he said, the nothing went bang. So again, kind of illogical, what they do is they try to shrink it down to a single point of singularity. You see right here, this red ball, they say this is basically the universe at 10 to the minus 34 seconds before it exploded. I do want to blow this up so you can see it. Take a look at the subheading. The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing, zero nada. As it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere, not exactly science right there. But at the end of the day, that's their option, the best option. The option that makes logical sense, Ray, is that this universe was created. And so we see here very plainly, one of the ways that we can prove the existence of God is just the fact that matter exists. There had to be a cause for it. The second way is the existence of morals. In fact, NASA astronomer John O'Keefe, he put it this way. He said, we are by astronomical standards, a pampered, cost-ed and cherished group of creatures. He says, if the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could have never come into existence. It is my view, these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in.  The other thing that we know is morals. Morals actually prove there's a God. Think about liberal Missouri for just a moment. When I put these words on the screen, hopefully most of the viewers out there look at those and they think, hey, those are wrong. But in order for something to be wrong, that means there has to be ultimately a standard. And so the question is, what is that standard? Who came up with that standard? This time, we only have two options. Option number one is that we got our morality, our ethics from God. Or option number two, they came from man. Now, what's the problem with us saying that they came from man? Obviously, an atheist, they've only got that one option. They have to say, yeah, morals exist. But man evolved them. Well, then the question is, what man gets to decide?  Is it a serial killer? You know, ultimately, who gets to say what is right and what is wrong? Ultimately, the problem was saying that man evolved ethics. Morals is that every single person would view it a little bit differently. And so the only option that makes logical sense is that we've adopted God's unchanging standard for right and wrong. The Bible describes God as eternal, holy, just, righteous, forever consistent. In fact, whatever he commands or approves, whatever he does is ultimately for our good. I want to stop you right there, Brad. We have to take a break. Stay with us. We'll be right back after these messages. We hope you're enjoying Origins TV. It all started at Cornerstone Television in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. We've been producing new episodes for over 37 years now. We praise God for the success of the program and are excited to introduce you to Origins and to us. If you're interested in watching more episodes of Origins, you can find them on our YouTube page. Simply go to YouTube and search Cornerstone Television Network. Click the like and subscribe buttons, then you'll find the best episodes of Origins in our playlist. You can also visit our website at ctvn.org slash Origins. One more way you can stay connected with us is to subscribe to our free monthly Hope Today newsletter, which you can do from our website. And if you have any questions, call us here at Cornerstone Television at<PHONE_NUMBER>. We'd love to connect with you. Thank you for watching. Welcome back to Origins. We're talking to Dr. Brad Herob, who's been sharing about an experiment in infidelity. Brad, we've gotten past the infidelity part. We've been talking about the fidelity part that we can know there's a God. I find this fascinating. In fact, I love this part of apologetics that it's not even probability. We know he's there. We know. We talked a little bit about cause and effects. We talked a little bit about morals and how we use those to prove there's a God. I want us to talk a little bit about design because to me, design is probably one of the, if not the best arguments. If there is design that demands there is a designer. Absolutely. I like to tell the kids I teach at the Christian school, if you see a pie, there's a pie maker. Absolutely. If you see a universe, there's a universe maker. Absolutely. When we look at the universe, the design in the universe, think about the positioning of things like the earth, the sun, all the different aspects that have to be just perfect in order for life to exist. You've got, for instance, the location, the orbit of the earth, the rotation, the makeup of the earth, the distance from the sun. All those things have to be precise or else you and I are not here today. Again, we're talking just really small deviations from that would eliminate life. Absolutely. In fact, I want to share with you the statistical odds of having a heavenly body in just the right place in space. Now, I'll go ahead and admit to you Ray right up front. I didn't care for math much in school. Had to have calculus to get through medical school. But God and I, we've kind of got an agreement that unless there's a math test to get into heaven, I'm done with math. But if we were to look at statistically, what are the odds of, for instance, being in the right type of galaxy? We know today we are in a spiral galaxy. The odds of that about one in seven, but not only the right type, you have to be in the right location in that galaxy. Can't be too close to the center or too far out on one of those spiral arms. The odds of that are about 0.05 to the fifth billion. But not only that, you have to be near the right sun. Now, this would be the right age sun, one that's not flaming up or flaring out. Odds of that about one in a hundred. You have to also be the right distance from that sun. So again, one in 40. The odds of being at the right rotation rate, one in four, the right tilt, one in 360, you add all of these up and the number you see right here at the bottom of the screen, that is the statistical odds of having a heavenly body in just the right place in space. Statistically, it's impossible. Yeah, I don't know what that number is either. I went to seminary. There you go. There you go. Here's the ironic thing. We still don't have life yet.  Ultimately, you're not going to get off the ground. It, it makes me laugh when I ask atheists, Hey, where did water come from? According to your theory, you know, my belief, very firmly God created water on the very first day. The spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. I've actually had university professors heckling me saying, Oh, it's a water cycle. And I'm always like, wait a second. In order to have a water cycle, you first have to have water. It's interesting in 2009, evolution has published a paper that gives their explanation for our water. And they would say that water was actually delivered here by meteorites. Yeah, yeah, comments. I've heard that. Yeah. And I'm thinking, wait a second. First off, we've never seen them in the water delivery business. And second, think about what happens when they hit our atmosphere, it would burn up and the water would go away. So they, they were big enough. There would be these craters everywhere, right? I mean, it would be like Swiss cheese. The planet would be decimated. They can't even explain water. You add to that the sun.  There is always somebody at local congregations that has a job that I do not envy and that guy's job is to control a little box on the wall. And you and I both know he can make the ladies happy and have guys just sweating or he can make us happy and have the girls just freezing to death. And yet God set the temperature for the sun. Ninety three million miles away, just perfect for life. Are we really to believe that the earth's atmosphere, the tilt, the rotation, the distance to the moon, distance from the sun, the orbit, the placement that all of that is simply a product of evolution. I don't think that's where we are. Design demands a designer. Michael Murray said this, he said almost everything about the basic structure of the universe, for example, the fundamental laws and the parameters of physics, the initial distribution of matter and energy is balanced on a razor's edge for life to occur. And he's absolutely correct. Design demands a designer. God is the ultimate cause. God is the ultimate source of good and evil. And God is the one who has designed all things. Wonderful program, Brad. Thanks for being with us. Absolutely. Thank you, Ray. Thank you for being with us. On today's program, we saw the real life consequences of intentionally living without belief in God in liberal Missouri. It was an unmitigated disaster. The fact is all human beings know God exists. They know him as the necessary cause of this universe of effects. They know him as the necessary source of all of our conviction of good and evil, and they know him as the necessary architect of all of this precisely designed and ordered universe. It just goes to show you that we do know that the Bible is true and the proof is all around you. If you enjoy origins, we sure could use your help to keep this creation television program on the air. Your support, both prayerfully and financially, make a big impact. So let's work together to reveal how awesome our creator truly is. And we'll see you next time right here on Origins. Thank you for watching this edition of Origins. For a DVD of this series, you can order online or send a $12 donation to cover shipping and handling and write to Origins program number 2308 Cornerstone Network, Wall, Pennsylvania 15148. This presentation was made possible by the faithful prayers and financial support of you, our Cornerstone family.


This goes without saying I am a very opinionated person and chances are if you're watching this You're also a really opinionated person. So when it comes to politicians in Congress, there's nobody who's perfect There's nobody who I align with 100% I align pretty closely with some individuals in Congress But even if I align with them 100% on policy, I maybe disagree with them with regard to strategy having said all of that Alexandria Ocasio-Gortez is doing a damn good job at representing me and even if I don't necessarily agree with everything that she does or I dislike a vote that she casts I will never deny that she is genuinely trying her best and she actually wants to affect change and She has a command of policy details that people who have been in Congress for decades still lack She's doing a phenomenal job. So it really is disheartening to me to see all of the attacks lobbed against her I mean the minute she won her primary she was public enemy number one for Republicans They tried to demonize her smear her dishonestly and it is truly heartbreaking and you know all of this that AOC Experiences, I mean, it's not even a fraction of what Ilhan Omar faces but still when you have so many members of Congress taking corporate money representing only their donors to see all of the H would be directed to people who are actually trying to make a difference it Pisses me off. It really pisses me off So when I heard that a Republican verbally accosted AOC at the Capitol I I really took it personal it it angered me because he took issue with something that she said and the response was to basically have a meltdown to her rather than trying to be an adult and Vocalize his disagreements Like a grown-up like this is such a weird story So as Mike Lillis of the Hill reports tensions flared on Capitol Hill this week when a Republican lawmaker challenged Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on issues of crime and policing in an unusual and decidedly personal Confrontation on the Capitol steps Representative Ted Yoho was coming down the steps on the east side of the Capitol on Monday Having just voted when he approached Ocasio-Cortez who was ascending into the building to cast a vote of her own in a brief But heated exchange which was overheard by a reporter. Yoho told Ocasio-Cortez She was quote-unquote Disgusting for recently suggesting that poverty and unemployment are driving a spike in crime in New York City during the coronavirus Pandemic you are out of your freaking mind.  He said that kind of confrontation hasn't ever happened to me ever She said I've never had that kind of abrupt disgusting kind of disrespect levied at me approached a few hours later Yoho declined to discuss any aspect of the exchange. No comment. He said.   That we'd hear from Republicans I mean Fox News would cover it and cry about there being no civility or decorum Donald Trump would tweet about it and demand that she apologize on a lot of Republicans Mitch McConnell Ted Cruz would tweet about this and say that she's disgusting for saying that and being disrespectful They would be calling on Nancy Pelosi to remove her from committee assignments I mean, we know exactly what Republicans would do because we've seen the way that they've reacted when Rashida Tlaib for example said we're gonna impeach the motherfucker.  Chuck Grassley isn't taking to the floor to denounce this lack of civility We're not going to see Fox News call out Yoho here for what he said Nothing because there's a double standard. They are allowed to treat us with no respect They're allowed to openly disrespect us and you know Vocalize their contempt for us and that's fine. That's to be expected But at the shoes on the other foot, well, they're entitled to our respect. I mean this is um This is infuriating to me now AOC later tweeted about this saying I never spoke to representative Yoho before he decided to accost me on the steps of the nation's capital yesterday Believe it or not, I usually get along fine with my GOP colleagues We know how to check our legislative sparring at the committee door, but hey bitches get stuff done So I mean you need this to say I think that she handled it a lot more responsibly and mature than I would have I would have fired back and called him a prick Um something like that. It's just you know, this is only acceptable if um It's being done to the left or to someone who is younger Because there's this assumption um this ageist assumption That young people don't know any better someone like AOC to suggest something That he disagrees with that's just outrageous um, it's just it's so infuriating that you see this um and will Her colleagues in the democratic party come to her defense I mean, maybe you get a couple of them, but we'll Nancy Pelosi call for civility Will Chuck Schumer speak out against this lack of decorum lack of mutual respect among colleagues Probably not But I mean this is uh, no surprise That doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't talk about it And uh shame people who uh are hypocrites here


Porting KDE apps to Android and why we care. My agenda for today is, first I want to explain why we care about Android, because after all, we're writing our own Android competitor. Why do we care about Android? Where are we now with supporting KDE software on Android? How hard is porting things to Android? And most importantly how it is done. Why do we care? Android has definitely more than one billion, maybe even more than two billion users. That's a lot. That's about a billion times more than we do. And this includes most of us at the moment. And porting our apps to Android is a very good opportunity for us to be able to actually test our own applications in a day-to-day usage, which is a very important part of developing them. And it's also a good way of growing the number of users that maybe don't even want to use Plasma Mobile, but still want to use cool privacy respecting applications on Android. And every user is in some way a potential contributor, so we also grow the number of potential contributors. Where are we now? We have 28 applications built for Android on the binary factory. Actually it's 29 because I didn't count Krita, because Krita being Krita does its own weird thing and it doesn't show up in our usual Android view. But apparently it works on Android. Seven of them are on Google Play already, and three of them are on Android. So before anyone tells me that, why are we so much more on Google Play than on Android? Android is much better. Yes, I agree, but it's also having things on Android, getting things there is a bit more involved, because on Google Play we just create an APK and upload it there, and be done with it. On Android it's a bit more complicated because they do all those nasty things of wanting to check that your application is actually built from your source, and that it's trusted, and this kind of thing. So what they do is they build all of the applications themselves, and what you need to do is provide a kind of build recipe to them, where these steps for building these apps are defined, which is usually pretty easy for the usual Java gradle-based builds, but it's actually really tricky to do for our Qt-based applications that have a lot of dependencies, but it's certainly possible. I have uploaded Ktrip there. Build script is only like 100 lines of bash. It's awesome. Yeah, I really need to do something about that. Okay, anyway, how hard is porting to Android? The answer clearly is it depends on what your application is doing. There are some things that make porting hard. Those are Qt widgets. Qt widgets are not a problem on Android themselves. They usually just don't make very touch and mobile friendly UIs, but if you have a widgets application that works on a phone form factor, then you can also port it to Android. The second thing that makes things hard with debuzz, because debuzz does not exist on Android, and apps that inherently make use of or require debuzz are probably not going to be runable on Android. Our Android build is a bit weird because it actually does provide debuzz with a giant hack, but it's not really useful because you can do anything with it. And so you usually need to make sure that you have if-deft-out or debuzz usage. Another thing that is tricky, but usually it doesn't appear that much in KT-E stuff, is things that are specific to G-Lib C, because Android does not use G-Lib C. It uses Bionic, so sometimes things can go wrong there, but since there are other distributions that don't use G-Lib C, it's usually not a problem on our software. Something else that makes it hard is weird build systems. Our stuff is usually fine. It's mostly third-party dependencies that can be a bit of a pain, especially you need to be able to cross-compile things, which some build systems make harder than others. And what's also usually a non-starter is esoteric multi-process architectures, because on Android things are typically constrained to a single process. And usually also it's very focused on the application is only running when it's on the screen. There are ways to run in the background, which gets increasingly hard to do. But yeah, then how it is done, it's actually really easy. You just need to call CMake with the correct arguments. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. It is easy in theory, but in practice it can be very tricky. If you want to check out the K-Trip, it shows every single command that is needed to get it built for Android. And it's horrible, because it's very repetitive. You need to do like the same five or six commands for every framework's dependency. And that's why we have a different solution for that. And like all the cool things, it's built on Docker, or is Docker even still cool? Anyway, yeah, all right. So let's start this Docker container. It's basically, it's called KDE org slash Android SDK. I have some volumes defined here, so that I have my source code on my host system and just expose that to the Docker container. So the way I build an application is there's a bunch of helper scripts in Octopers. The most important one is the build-generic one. And here you just pass an application name, so for example K-Trip, and then it works kind of similar like KDE source build, so it downloads all the dependencies and builds them. That can take quite a long time on the initial build. In that case it should be a bit faster because I've already built it. But yeah, let me, yeah, maybe we can wait until it's finished. So basically what this script does is first it checks the source code of your application for which executable is actually going to be built. So it does start by invoking the script called getAPKRx, which checks your Android manifest for a key where you define your executable. So if you have a project that defines multiple executables, you need to pick which one should get converted into the application. And what it does is it generates some CMake arguments for that that are getting passed to CMake. Then it's calling the KDE build metadata for getting the dependencies. So this script only works with KDE applications and then it builds them with the right CMake argument, installs them into some place, and then it builds the actual application. All that doing, all compiling is done with the compiler from the Android native development kit. And once that's done it's calling the actual apk creation step, which is as easy as calling make create dash apk. And in the end there's an apk falling out that you can then install your device and have fun with it. So this container is very much only designed to work on existing KDE applications, but you often also want to start a new application that is not yet on KDE. And there are ways in which you can get that working too. I will show you that in a minute once this is finished, or yeah let me just interrupt that. So does the container deal with external dependencies for which the CI needs the custom JSON blob? Yeah, those scripts are part of the container, right? The way external dependencies work usually is when you are, when they are CMake-based it's really easy because there's a helper script called octalpers-build-cmake, and then you pass in a project name like for example the mical, which is used for kicking on the core, and then you pass in url to the repository, like https-github.com slash lib-icl, then that works. What you also can do is pull the framework like a kcore add-ons framework, and that's what the the build-generic script is calling internally. So some dependencies are a bit more tricky, for example open SSL or others. For those we usually have wrapper scripts. So for example we have a build-popular script, which is just a batch script that does all the necessary steps to compile popular. And if you want to use a dependency that that we don't have a script for, you are encouraged to add a script, and then in the binary factory job configuration you need to tell it which scripts to run for your application. So actually in theory the Docker container is very easy if you just want to get an application, which is just get an apk, it's just running the Docker container and then in the end the apk falls out. So for KDE applications that are already set up it's really really easy to get an apk. It gets a bit more tricky if you want to make new apps and also have it in a way that's easier to hack on the source code. Also the way the dependency specification works is in the JSON thing you have this thing called dependencies and they just write and opt help us build popular and then automatically when Ocular is built popular gets built as well. All right so let's assume we have our own application that we want to build that is not yet on KDE. So what I usually do is I call the opt help us get apk arcs on some existing app which okay just ignore the fail that's not a failure gives you these two arguments and then you replace ktrip with your own executable name then you copy that and then you can just call the opt help us build CMake thing with your app git and then can paste those op parameters at the end and then it should build your app and then what you also need to do is go into the other then it builds everything but the apk and then you can go to the build directory and manually invoke make create apk which doesn't work right now because I canceled the build earlier but in theory that should output your apk to somewhere in the build directory and then you can either have a volume that automatically puts it on your disk or docacp it out of the container and run it on your phone. Okay let's go back to representation yeah the whole article on the docker container could use a bit of extension for all the tricks I just showed you. Okay so now you want to port a new app there's a few steps you need to do always and then there's a few things you need to take care of if you're using certain patterns or things what you always need to have is an android manifest.xml where technically you can do without but yeah you you don't really uh usually I just copy that from some other project and then just replace the names because it's mostly boilerplate. There is a thing inside which sets the android.app.lib name thing and that must match your executable name and I usually put the android manifest into a subfolder called android you can name that anything you like but that's one of those parameters that gets set or gets extracted from this get apk args thing so if you do that manually you need to check that this is pointing to the right directory and in the same folder as the android manifest you also put the android specific javasource files if you have any and your resource files like your app icon which you need to put into android slash res slash drawable and then you can reference it from the android manifest with add drawable slash the file name. What you also need to do is go to your main method and mark that as exported because else android can't find it and you do that by just putting a q decal export in front of it. So when you start it up now it hopefully shows up but you will notice that it doesn't have any icons at all which is bad but luckily there isn't there's a fix and so that's when you're loading your icons from the icon theme and to do to make that possible you actually need to bundle your icons into your apk this is done with the kirigami package breeze icon cmake macro which yes this automatically includes the icons that kirigami use internally i think and then you you put that into somewhere in your cmake usually with an if android around it and here is the a bit ugly part where you need to specify every icon that your app uses in some way and that should be bundled inside. It's a bit ugly but i don't really know how it would be done better because you don't want to bundle all breeze icons because then your apk size would be huge and what you also need to take care of is actually including the qt svg lib yourselves your svg icons wouldn't be able to be rendered and that's done by linking your application against qt 5 svg manually which you usually don't need to do on the desktop but need to do here so that android deploy qt that's the tool that convert that makes your apk knows that it's important and needed so what else needs to be done some applications or libraries use plugin systems and to make them work you need to tell android deploy qt that the plugins should be bundled into the apk so one example where this is done is k people where it needs to bundle the data source plugins and this is done by first defining k people dash android dash dependencies dot xml file where in the file you describe which plugins from which folders will be included and then that file needs to be installed into the library location and then android deploy qt will pick up those files so two examples as i said k people makes use of it k people currently has an issue which i discovered while preparing for this talk but i wasn't able to fix it yet but the fix is quite simple is that with qt 5 14 the way this is done changed a bit and k notifications actually does the right thing so check the source code on that on how it's done something else that can be tricky is file paths because um usually sometimes we assume files are present in a certain location on the desktop but it's not true on the on android because on android usually you can only see the the on private the on private file storage but to access the the general file storage you need to get consent from the user to do that and this is especially tricky with q standard paths generic data location which is not accessible by default unless you request the permission so consider always using app data location for this kind of things and if you have files like an image for the default avatar then you shouldn't rely on that thing being present in the file system but consider bundling those things in your resources sometimes you might need to write an code that is specific to android or you have code that shouldn't be run on android in cmake you can use if android or if not android to guard android specific code from c++ there's the qos android defined that you can check for before using android specific code or if def qos android for code that shouldn't be compiled for android just a cube module called qt android extras that provides some useful api for some basic things for example dealing with the android permission system there are cube wrappers for that and for some things you will need to call the android java api with the java native interface which is really ugly usually qt android extras has some wrappers for this kind of things that make it a bit less ugly but it's still not really pretty we have solutions for some problems like creating notifications inside k notifications and we're looking into expanding the capabilities of rke frameworks on android and if you have any solutions for these kind of problems that fit into the scope of kd frameworks then we are very happy to receive contributions for that so a few resources um yeah the code is documentation enough obviously that's uh i'm only half joking because i learned most of what i know about putting things to android by looking at how itinerary does it and you can get quite far with that and out the cute has a lot of documentation on running cute apps on android there's unfortunately not that much documentation about kte specifics and we also have a matrix channel with all the people interested in cute on android so consider joining that first k android extras will it become a standalone library at some point yes assuming there's interest in that so but yeah that's the general idea so if you if there is something in there you want to use then talk to folker and he can extract that all right questions what kind of things are you talking about exactly because usually for like some things in itinerary where we have android specific code is things like brightness control screen lock inhibition for that we have frameworks that do those kind of things on the desktop so that would be a natural place to put it there if it's really just generic android things then k android extras could make sense um what i usually do is adb install and then the apk there's also a target in the make file that is called make install apk or some or something like that which should send it to the phone automatically


What's going on guys got a brand new movie review for you guys today and today I'm discussing Disney's brand new live-action film The Nutcracker and the Four Realms Parker and the Four Realms is about a young girl who's transporting to a magical world of gingerbread soldiers and an army of mice There's more to the story with that But that's kind of all you got to know you've a lot of the stuff that you've seen in the trailer is what you get in This film and I'll put it this way whatever you think you're gonna get out of this film is what you're gonna get out of it Equivalent this film to if you go to Disneyland get in line for about 45 to 50 minutes Then you're gonna get on this brand new dark ride That's a little bit scary for kids But maybe adults are kind of just fine fine, but you get on this ride you go It's maybe a 10 minute ride But midway through the ride breaks down for 10 to 12 minutes or at least what it seems like then the ride Continues it and you get off and you go. Oh, that was fine. I'll probably never go on it again That's how this film is. It was just fine. There's nothing special to it. There's nothing Amazing to it. It's just a film that you really watch once and then you're done with it That's how I at least feel maybe you feel different and that's what's great about movies We can talk about it down below in the comments discuss it if you think it's better than what I'm saying But I just found the film to be a little bit lifeless and just be nothing original Like it had a really cool original concept There are a lot of steampunk little cool knots to the world and there are some cool Mythology building stuff that they do do in this world of the nutcracker in the four realms But it just felt like there was nothing special to it Which is weird because it looks original and it looks unique home itself wasn't what I will say a most important that works for This film wholeheartedly is the cast Mackenzie Foy is the main character Clara is fantastic I thought Mackenzie Foy had a lot of charismatic Value to her and I thought Karen Knightley did good as sugarplum Morgan Frayman was great Helen Mirren's always good and was really just good in here and they never bragged down the film They really good with what the material gave them But again, it just feels like a lifeless film. It's moving. It's chugging along and it's very short It was only an hour and a half long and not including the credits and it just went smoothly at times a little bit boring But again, there are some cool elements to it. I can't totally trash on the film I did enjoy some of the moments to it and the costume design in here plus the dancing the actual ballet that they Do have in some of this film is Exquisite and I wanted a little bit more of it and that's where I'll say that if you're interested in the nutcracker story Might as well just go find a ballet near you and go watch it or watch any of the other Original concepts for it the film does gets you into the holiday feverish pitch that is coming up soon But again, it just doesn't feel original. It's it's normal self and There was nothing really unique about it even though I had a lot of unique concepts It just didn't captivate on and the nutcracker is exactly what you're gonna get out of it It's exactly what you think it's gonna be I saw the trailers It looked a little bit unoriginal and I just saw it and I was like, yeah That's gonna lose a lot of money and that's what I really feel like with the box office Maybe it's just me that felt this way But I just felt like it was lacking a lot of elements of fun and Z foy was great I really liked her and I can't want to see what she does next the world building itself was there But I think it needed a little bit more development and overall the direction was a little bit lacking the film itself is just Lifeless and it's just one of those things you see once you're never gonna need to see again And that's why I'm gonna give the nutcracker in the four realms a C Sorry for the nutcracker or are you not? Let's talk about it I'm curious here you guys thoughts and of course you're new here and you guys are interested in seeing movies early or Checking out other movie news and movie reviews you can check out see how much on films also down below because right down there We provide all that sorts of stuff and sometimes we do some giveaways guys, of course until next time stay classy You