primarily about the Gibbs-Duhem equation this is actually applicable for any extensive property what we have seen is for any extensive property you will write everything in terms of specific property sorry where E is identically capped E by n by the total number of moles this is one equation the other equation says I will say example binary we will discuss binary mixtures and then I will extend it to multi-component mixtures E is equal to x1 then we showed that or this is one this is two since Gibbs-Duhem equation says two follows from three from differentiating one and using equation three. So we have the simple result that I can solve equations one and two simultaneously for E1 bar and E2 bar so I have E1 bar is equal to E plus x2 partial of E with respect to x1 and then E2 bar is E-x1 partial of E with respect to x1 just switch one and two but differentiation with respect to two is same as differentiation with respect to one with a minus sign so this is the set of the simplest way of solving for E1 E2 and it has the advantage that because there is one degree of freedom this has the advantage that this equations are symmetric you can simply model E and you do not have to model any one of the components. So if you have a model for E then you automatically have these are general results these are very important and in particular the most important in fact the three quantities that are important I will say E equal to G which is the most important thing GH and V these two are measurable and this is important from a theoretical point of view you know that G with respect to G by T with respect to T will give you – H by T square G with respect to P will give you V so the pressure dependence and the temperature dependence are covered through measurements of H and V because enthalpy and volume are also extensive properties these conditions are satisfied so if I can measure enthalpy change for example actually I should have written this I wrote I think everything as let me make a small change here I should actually have written everything in terms of ? E which is what I did last time right I will just repeat it here I will say more conveniently because what I have written there is correct we write the same equations we write equations like this ? E is equal to ? over XI when you get partial of ? E with respect to ? X I have to write it for specifically for binary I am just repeating the whole thing for you guys I do not know what to do about this chikung gania apparently some cases in the campus health officer and he said he was doing it okay double check it otherwise why do not you tell the wardens I will also tell the wardens we will make sure some spraying is done this thing is not fatal but apparently it causes near unbearable pain in the joints for about three four days okay we will come back to this I am rewriting all these equations so these are not new equations but these are equations written this will be one prime in terms of mixture properties so this is E1 bar – E1 – E2 bar – E2 and then we have E1 bar – E1 is equal to ? E plus X2 partial of ? E with respect to ? X1 and so on and then 1 and 2 can be interchanged what you are looking for is this property here E1 bar because if you are doing face equilibrium we have already shown in particular remember that G1 bar is the same as ? ? 1 so we have shown in face equilibrium that ? 1 ? is equal to ? 1 ? ? 2 ? is equal to ? 2 ? governs the face equilibrium so if I know the chemical potential as a function of composition then I can do the face equilibrium calculations so the purpose of this entire exercise is to get the composition dependence of the chemical potential since it is more general than that the theory actually applies to all partial molar properties I am deriving it in general for an arbitrary partial molar property I said three are of importance ? G because that will give you the chemical potential as a function of composition ? H ? V because they govern the temperature and the pressure dependence of the chemical potential and those are the measurable quantities these are not actually what is measurable is the change in enthalpy in the change in volume of course is explicitly measurable so we have these equations so what we have is in particular when E is equal to G E1 bar is equal to ? 1 and E is equal to H E1 bar is equal to I am sorry H1 bar for the others we do not have a name this is G1 bar which is identical with me one because E after mixing is XI EI bar we integrated the basic equations to show that you remember otherwise I can recall it for you here we did it for G the basic equation simply tell you this quantity holding TP NJ not equal to I is called EI bar that is the definition of partial molar property we integrated this at constant T and P but at arbitrary T and P the initial state was characterized by TP and some composition and we took this thought experiment in which we expanded the system by a factor of K into calculate the differences from that we got E is equal to sum over EI bar Ni so for property of a mixture it is not sufficient for you to know the specific property of pure I you have to know its value the permeable value in the mixture this is a function of composition this is also equal to E after mixing if I am considering a process is identical with the E before mixing is sum over EI Ni this EI is pure I I take N1 moles of 1 it is an its value of E is small E1 so I just add it all up because this is before mixing after mixing in the mixture the property changes from EI to AI bar so if I want to understand the mixing process I have to know how to calculate EI bar that is the central thing in mixture theory because it was not done this way actual science progresses by iterations by various things but since this is 175 years since all this was done in fact more I think 1927 when people started doing this process in when Gibbs introduced partial molar properties and so on so it is it is been refined over a period of time now we see it in perspective the way we look at it is simply to look at the process of mixing in which you can make measurements you can mix two components at constant T and P the quantities you can measure are actually ? H and ? V you cannot measure ? G but so happens that ? G is the most important quantity because it governs phase equilibria chemical equilibria through equality of chemical potentials in two phases so I have to look at ? G although it is not measurable ? H and ? V are measurable so I am looking at E before mixing E after mixing if I take the difference between these two you get Ni into AI bar – AI if I take per molar the mixture I get this equation I take X1 moles of 1 X2 moles of 2 and form one molar the mixture so per molar the mixture the change in E is simply given by XI into this and I am doing binaries because primarily we will be dealing in this course with binaries and I will show you that the extension to multi-component system system real it is only algebraic complexity in practice though if you went to a refinery they will tell you you guys are being theoretical the actual refinery has 21 components but all you have to do is extend this and hit the idiot box on the head I mean the computer you just have to hit it on the head will give you sped out all the answers just simultaneous equations instead of solving two equations you will solve any equations in any component system they are all absolutely trivial in principle this is all there is to it but what we found from thermodynamics also is that the equations for the chemical potential or for AI bar for that matter for any AI bar you have N variables and only N – 1 equation so there is 1 degree of freedom thermodynamics cannot give you that degree of freedom there is uncertainty so that comes from experiment the only way to do it is try and measure use something experiment or empiricism you guess a model either modeling or experimentation for delta H delta V you can get it from experiment if you can get it from experiment you do not do modeling when you are uncertain you do modeling you start talking about wave mixtures occur classical thermodynamics does not provide you with any method for calculating this directly molecular thermodynamics gives you mechanisms because there are molecules you can say this molecule is replaced by this molecule for example if I want to talk about mixing I will imagine a box full of molecules of type 1 and I will bring a molecule far away from infinity molecule 2 to the middle of this mixture then I ask what is the configuration around this molecule 2 what was the configuration before what is the difference in the energy and what is the difference in the entropy I can do these calculations in a molecular theory but as far as classical thermodynamics is concerned I am simply guessing what delta ES in the case of G in the case of H and V so I will say for E equal to H or V use experimental data for delta H delta V for E equal to G models have to be developed we have exactly one model one ingenious model and variations of that this was done in 1898 as I told you by Van Laar I do not have the Dutch say use read V as F the Germans do I am not sure I have had only Van Laar here and in the US so I have to check with some Dutchman and I will same parenthetically Van der Waals and then any number of molecular models and then empirical models of course you will have to know the Van Laar model for one thing it works very well and it is also beautifully derived I will derive it here you do not need any extraordinary concepts with the existing concepts you can do the derivation it is a really clever one I mean after it is derived you can say what is the big deal I could have done it if you go back 1898 and look at the state of thermodynamics and ask if you could have guessed it and you said yes then you better be jolly good you better be in a well-priced quality but if you are honest most probably you will say no you could not have even thought of it molecular models there are many many of them the ones you have to know in this course are all of these are actually quack first like it is not then unique quack then there is a model called NRTL then I should have mentioned Wilson I think those are the only ones you have to know there are more but these are the tested ones and empirical models starts from what is called porters model holes models is a whole series of models I will add Van Laar again because Van Laar is actually derived of very good model it had only one parameter in it then people did not later who people who came along use these equations without realizing that there was only one parameter to there were two parameters related to one another they did not realize it so they made it a two parameter model and the two parameter model is so successful that it is fully established so we will use the empirical model of one large is the same model as what we derive here except that people forgot how it was derived this kind of thing happens all the time then finally there is a model by doles Alec no that should come under theoretical models I will say here Van Laar one classical model I suppose I should say I will also say plus one due to doles Alec this comes under slightly different it comes under what is called chemical theory of solutions all of these come under so called physical theories that means these theories for mixtures are derived without assuming any chemical reactions doles Alec said all mixtures are ideal except that you are looking at the wrong species so therefore it is a chemical theory it assumes it postulates chemical reactions that actually occur in mixtures as a result of which if you mix A and B you do not get a mixture of A and B but you get an ideal mixture of A to B and AB three if you like some combinations he postulates that there are reactions that take place in the solution in the final mixture if you looked at the right components is simply ideal but all others are physical theories actually there is some evidence for chemical theory chemical theory is now used in all cases where there is clear evidence of association salvation we have mixtures where the components in solution form dimers or for example hf in a mixture always seems to exist as h6 f6 if you take that into account then it does form ideal mixtures the other substances similarly you have your salvation where where a solvent solute molecule is surrounded by the solvent molecules because of high interaction so if you take that complex as one entity then you have an ideal mixture so these are very special cases other than that these are the models I will just say a few words about these acronyms this is actually called quasi chemical theory it is called quasi chemical theory because the form of the final result looks like the result you would have got had you assumed a chemical reaction it sort of recalls dole's alex theory but there is no chemical reaction postulated here the reaction postulated is of this form I mean postulated in the sense the final result looks like it in the sense that what is what this was done by Guggenheim that is the big name here there is a series of Guggenheim lectures Guggenheim this thing in Europe the students students students all combined to form these lectures and they are very prestigious anyway Guggenheim suggested that if you take a lattice model for the you do not have to go to molecular thermodynamics for this you simply imagine that one and one are neighbors and he says if you have a one and one and then out to two this is one one this is to two in the mixture you are replacing this one one bonds by one two and two one bonds the two two and the one one are you breaking up and you are forming one two and two one bonds simply did a counting on that and assumed that one one plus two two produces two times one two if you imagine the reaction of this kind where you go from a one one pair and a two two pair to one two pairs then you would write a chemical equilibrium equation which tells you the number of one two pairs whole square by the number of one one pairs times the number of two two pairs is equal to constant that is the equation that comes out of the theory and therefore the theory is called quasi chemical theory this is called the universal quasi chemical theory this is derived by Proust Nets so I will write the names down this is Guggenheim and then this is due to Proust Nets Proust Nets and co-workers Proust Nets is probably 75 and he is at Berkeley even now NRTL is again due to Proust Nets but the name associated with okay I will tell you the for Uniquac the name associated with that is Abrams for NRTL it is Proust Nets and Renon Wilson is due to Wilson so he generalized Proust Nets generalized this theory again made a mistake end up with two independent parameters that correlated data so well that you cannot argue against Uniquac I mean if you say Uniquac should not be used people laugh at you then further corrections have been made in fact we ourselves have made the correction in Uniquac there was a mistake you got to what is called the it is not at widely used as no point teaching it in an undergraduate course but it is called it is essentially a self consistent theory NRTL is actually again I do not want to get you guys to get very skeptical NRTL is derived by a mistake but the resulting equations correlate data so well that people have accepted it again it is called non-random two liquid theory there is a corresponding theory actually I must have mentioned that here apart from these there is another whole list of theories that go by the name of corresponding states I will discuss that separately there is a corresponding states theory due to Scott and due to Scott and what from that theory is NRTL theory was derived I mean that is a basis I am going to discuss all these in greater detail this is giving you general stories behind but anyway this is the this theory is a very successful theory for liquid liquid mixtures so we will use it Wilson is the guy who started the whole concept of liquid mixtures theory of liquid mixtures actually it has a very small paper in 1962 I think it is in if I remember correctly in Journal of JCP and it was a very small one page paper and Wilson simply said maybe I am jumping the gun but let me say this a bit suppose you have 1 1 1 1 1 here and then you introduce a molecule of 2 here what he suggested was for example this could be suppose you looked at a liquid mixture closely and locally you could take a look at let us say this is the lattice configuration I have 1 4 neighbors arranged like this around a central molecule actual lattice configurations are different but does not matter only illustrating a point if I have cells like this inside the liquid then I have a 50-50 mixture of 1 and 2 all around all it sees his neighbors are once in here it is 2 and I will show you the following physical result we have already seen this result you have seen that the work done in a process in an isothermal process at constant temperature and pressure the work done is equal to minus delta G we saw that for open systems correspondingly this number the work done in bringing a molecule to 1 mole of 2 into or 1 molecule of 2 into a mixture of 4 molecules of 1 and so on is determined completely by the chemical potential mu 2 I will show you that mu 2 is the change in mu 2 from the pure state gives you the work done in bringing this molecule to from infinity to here that is the physical interpretation so this the work done in this mixture in a 50-50 mixture is actually not dependent on the global composition but on the local composition. So what Wilson said was you should not be talking of x2 what you should be talking of x2 1 that means the mole fraction of 2 in the neighborhood of 1 and that is what determines the work done and that is what determines delta G that is started off a whole spate of theories called local composition theories and all these come under local composition theories this does not quite come under local computers derived before Wilson's theory with Uniquac and NRTL come under local composition theories all these so these three are called local composition theories I think that is all as far as these theories and what I will do now is derive the theory of one law one law basically said I am interested in a model for delta G you want the composition dependence of the free energy of mixing this is clearly equal to delta H you are doing mixing at constant T and P this is the process of interest in looking at delta G mix it is equal to delta H – T delta S is equal to delta U plus P delta V – T delta S constant T and P so at delta T delta P one coming no change in temperature and pressure of these this is an argument you can make the change but this is a valid argument for a large number of mixtures the change in delta V is so small that P delta V is very small compared to delta U so I am going to neglect this because it is small it is a reasonable assumption very rarely is delta V large enough for you to worry about it is an assumption that is made very often then he said I am going to have an ideal mixture I already understand an ideal mixture I showed you that one solution to the Gibbs Gamm equation is log x 1 but let us say I assume delta G ideal is equal to delta H ideal – so I will say approximately but I will say – T delta S ideal here I can write P delta V ideal also but in the ideal mixture there is no change in volume there is no change in enthalpy I do not have to worry about those in an ideal mixture you have molecules that do not whose interactions are not different in the mixture from in the pure state so there is no change in enthalpy there is no change so this difference delta G – delta G ideal is equal to T delta U and write – delta U ideal but this is actually 0 – T this is written identically as G excess similarly this will be written as U excess this is written as S excess the superscript is for excess it means over and above the ideal case all theories the molecular theory or the classical theory so far we have a problem with finding both they either assume U excess is 0 or S excess is 0 I must say one more model here in the molecular models is one more model which is due to flurry called the flurry against model it was polymer solutions where he said the big difference is not in energy but it is in arrangements so if you put in one polymer molecule here the polymer molecule is so large that has about 10,000 neighbors so your actual polymer concentration will be in parts per million but will have a tremendous influence on properties it is sort of deceptive if you take the weight fraction the polymer will be very high but if you take mole fractions the polymer will be very low because the polymer molecular weight will be 100,000 the other molecular weight will be 10 so the factor of 1,000 or 10,000 so he was looking at special case of polymer solutions and he derived the theory that is a beautiful theory but it is one of the earliest as far as so flurry is another person it is called the flurry against theory against a student but anyway coming back here all theories flurry for example said U excess is effectively 0 it is negligible it is the entropy change that is most important and many other theories assume that S excess is 0 it means the mixing is ideal but the energetics are important so Van Laar for example said Van Laar's assumptions are the following assumed first that ? V is approximately 0 it is a very valid assumption I will say valid almost always and then he assumed S excess is equal to 0 this is not always valid certainly not valid for solutions of mixtures of substances that are very different in size but this is not always valid I will say for example not valid when sizes differ significantly so he finally said therefore ? G is equal to ? U you can relax some of those assumptions it is not trivial but you can but you are now going back in 1898 he went back to this equation he did not do it exactly like this this is also equal to CV so he starts with this equation du is equal to you are talking of constant temperature process so this is 0 in the real interest was in mixing of liquids that is of interest even now in thermodynamics because in mixing of gases not much happens gases behave reasonably well unless you are talking of very very high pressures so what Van Laar was then did a very clever thing he said he wants to mix 1 and 2 let me say x1 moles of pure 1 and x2 moles of 2 separately in 2 boxes from here you have to go to mixture of 1 and 2 of composition x1 this is liquid this is also liquid and you want to know what is ? G the progress we made is ? G is the same as ? U but I do not know ? U yet so I have not made much progress what he said was at this is a pressure P at T P this is also at same temperature and pressure he said we will go here T, P is equal to 0 it is simply this is a thought experiment so you just imagine that you evaporate completely 1 and 2 go to P is equal to 0 you have to be below the critical temperature actually for this you do not I am sorry let me just get back here so you just go to P is equal to 0 then you mix the 2 this is ideal mixing so you produce a gaseous mixture of 1 and 2 and then you condense it so this is evaporation this is condensation so you are replacing mixing this is ideal mixing this is mixing so the process of mixing you replace by evaporation ideal mixing and condensation I was looking at it step by step if you look at this you want only ? U for each of them ? G for this is the same as ? U ? G for these three steps because G is a function of state ? G does not matter if I calculate ? G from here to here or from here to here then to here then to here I add these so we will call this a b c d so first is ? G a to d is equal to ? G a b ? G b c now he said you can replace this with ? U a d actually he did not say this sorry this is ? U – T ? S please correct this but he said G excess is equal to U excess because ? S for the real process he said was the same as ? S for the ideal process the ideal process entropy you still have to take into account anything I want to stop here and repeat what I said because I said a lot I will continue next class actually the calculation steps are fairly straightforward imagine first of all the quantity of interest is the chemical potential for all phase equilibrium calculations for reaction equilibrium because on the one hand for reaction equilibrium I am going to use the fact that G should be a minimum and G again is given by Ni ? I so if I know ? I as a function of composition then I can play games with this if I want G to be a minimum I use the usual calculus but I have to use it in terms of measurable quantities so I have to express G is equal to Ni ? I in terms of composition variables so I need chemical potential as a function of composition now thermodynamics will give you the temperature dependence of the chemical potential through the enthalpy measurements it will give you the pressure dependence of the chemical potential through volume changes measurements but it cannot give you the composition dependence except through the Gibbs Duhem equations the Gibbs Duhem equations as I told you constitute N – 1 equations for N variables so there is 1 degree of freedom the way to deal with the degree of freedom is to look at the mixing process and derive all the results in terms of change in G during mixing so that is all I have done instead of looking at change in G I looked at change in any extensive property because in particular I am not only interested in change in G I am also interested in change in enthalpy and change in volume the change in G is given by I we derived those expressions and you know how to get e1 bar e2 bar once I know the change in G I have to know change in G as a function of composition so that is all I am looking at what Van Laar said was we do not understand liquid mixing it is too complex but we understand ideal gas mixing so he will go from here evaporate this in order to evaporate this all he has to do is integrate this from P is equal to 0 to P is equal to P right or the other way around P to 0 if you integrate this you just write this as doh v by doh p dp and integrate it if I have an equation of state I can calculate all these quantities it is not ideal after all you are going on increasing the pressure it is going to be non-ideal so you put in the Van der Waals equation of state for P do these differentiations and get this difference in particular you will get a by v squared Van der Waals equation says P plus a by v squared into v minus B is constant so when you do P with respect to T you will essentially end up here with a by v squared so if you integrate that you get directly a nice expression in terms of a you will get ? u so the change in internal energy here is measured by that constant a11 for pure 1 and a22 it is got two subscripts because in a mixture a changes then you do the ideal mixing there is only entropic change when you do ideal mixing and calculate that entropic change separately so ? s ideal is known ? u ideal is 0 then I have to do this calculation for condensation again Van der Waals equation had to be used it is a mixture a and b are functions of composition and what functions of composition you have to use an empiricism there I know how mixing occurs for hard spheres for example the size of the mixture the mixture here is treated as if it was one molecule or one substance with certain parameters certain size and certain energy so here again Van der Waals already had mixing rules we use those mixing rules and calculate the condensation energy it will also come out in terms of a mix so the whole process this plus this plus this will give you this expression ? once I have ? g I can get ?1 ?2 by differentiation you already written those equations.


I don't necessarily think that Democrats are going to pursue court packing, I hope that they prove me wrong, but this is the right course of action. And just the fact that this is something that even the pundit class is contemplating, it does have Republicans scared, and rightfully so. They should be afraid, because they should expect Democrats, if they are going to be a competent opposition party, to retaliate because what Republicans are doing is tantamount to court packing. If you hold open a Supreme Court seat for nearly a year and don't even allow a single hearing, if you rush through a nominee and try to confirm that individual before an election, after saying we don't confirm Supreme Court nominees during an election year, I mean that's court packing. I don't know what else to call it, it's court packing. It's not court packing in the sense that we expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court, but it still is court packing. You're making sure that the ideological tilt goes into your party's favor. So the Republican Party, they know that there is at least going to be a push from the left in the Democratic Party for court packing, and they're afraid. So they're preparing. They're trying to make it so that way they can pack the court, and then they stop Democrats from packing the court. So as Sung Min Kim of The Washington Post explains, ahead of Judge Amy Coney Barrett's expected confirmation to the Supreme Court in the coming days, a coalition of Senate Republicans is offering proposals intended to prevent Democrats from so-called court packing. The symbolic measures are intended for Republicans to go on the offensive against Democrats as the issue of whether to expand the number of seats on the nine-member Supreme Court remains a delicate one in the final days of the presidential and Senate campaigns. A half-dozen senators led by Senator Ted Cruz will unveil the proposals later Monday. The first is a constitutional amendment which would require support of two-thirds of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of individual states, barring the contraction or expansion of the number of seats on the Supreme Court. The second would bar any proposals to change the size of the Supreme Court from even being considered in the Senate unless two-thirds of its members agree. Make no mistake, if Democrats win the election, they will end the filibuster and pack the Supreme Court, expanding the number of justices to advance their radical political agenda, entrenching their power for generations, and destroying the foundations of our democratic system, Ted Cruz said in a statement describing his proposals. He added, we must take action before election day to safeguard the Supreme Court and the constitutional liberties that hang in the balance. Endorsing the measures are three Senate Republicans in competitive contests in November. Senators Tom Tillis, Martha McSally, and Kelly Loeffler, who have warned of court packing should Democrats win the White House and retake the Senate majority in November. So this was expected, but it's funny because they know that what they're doing warrants retaliation. They know that they're in the wrong. They know that what they're doing is going to lead to at least some members of the Democratic Party calling for court packing. The fact that Republicans are even pursuing a constitutional amendment now shows you that they know what they're doing is completely cynical, completely cynical. Because if this were a legitimate confirmation process, then there would be no discussions about court packing, but they know that they're packing the court. This is basically court packing light, right? And it's just, it's hilarious. So here's what I would say. My thinking is, all right, you don't want Democrats to pack the Supreme Court. If I'm Democrats, I'm playing hardball. I'll say, look, we will vow to not expand the number of justices on the Supreme Court. Granted, you have Donald Trump withdraw his nomination of Amy Coney Barrett. You do that. We don't pack the Supreme Court. Then we call it even. Hopefully AOC expressed the same sentiment as I just did, because she tweeted out in response to this plan, is the plan to withdraw Barrett's nomination. Because if not, I've got the world's tiniest violin at the ready. And that's exactly what I want to hear. That's some wholesome trolling that we need to see. Because what they're trying to do is they're trying to frame talks surrounding court packing as, you know, them playing defense and Democrats going on the offensive. And, you know, they're saying, we're going to retaliate, but understand it's Democrats who should pack the Supreme Court as a means of retaliating because that's what you're doing. So what they're trying to do is they want to pack the Supreme Court and then impose a constitutional amendment to stop Democrats from further expanding the court, except that's not going to pass. And what I propose is Democrats go tit for tat. Because even if you go tit for tat, you add two justices to, you know, make up for the two that Republicans stole, we'll let them add two more. We go back and forth. Because here's the way I see it. If Democrats do not pack the Supreme Court, that is 20 to 30 years of nonstop conservative rulings if Amy Coney Barrett is in fact confirmed. So even if Democrats choose to add five, six justices to the Supreme Court, Republicans then retaliate. That's still better than what we know will for sure be the case where we have nonstop conservative rulings. If both parties go tit for tat and, you know, keep expanding the number of justices on the Supreme Court, at least there's going to be some periods of time where there will be a liberal majority on the Supreme Court. But if we don't expand the Supreme Court, then that means nonstop conservative rulings. Not acceptable. That means that Roe v. Wade is on the chopping block, Obergefell v. Hodges is on the chopping block. The Citizens United and McCutcheon will be expanded with even more cases. I mean, there's so much at stake and we can't afford to be rehashing all of these old battles. So you've got to go tit for tat. But I don't argue that, you know, let them go tit for tat, that's fine, without making my own case to block Republicans from packing the court as well. Because as I've stated on this show before, Democrats shouldn't just expand the Supreme Court and then wait for Republicans to retaliate when Democrats are the ones who retaliated. What they should do is expand the Supreme Court and then stop Republicans from doing that. How do you do that?  That's not going to pass. You're not going to get that ratified. But what you need to do is you stop Republicans from packing the Supreme Court by expanding democracy. Because when we expand democracy in America, the Republican Party is a minority party that makes it more difficult for them to win. So if they're going to win, they have to appeal to more people if we further enhance our democracy. So what do I mean by that? Well, first of all, we add more states to the Union. We make DC a state. We make Puerto Rico a state. And when I say we make Puerto Rico a state, we allow them to determine whether or not they want to join the United States. We try to entice them perhaps, but we let them ultimately have their say. And if both of those states are added to the Union, we have 52 states, but guess what? That's four more senators for Democrats. Now Republicans could get dirty. They could try to add more states to the Union themselves. They can try to carve up Texas into multiple states. That's fine. We'll just carve up California into multiple states. They want to make it so that way Democrats can't win after they've expanded the size of the Senate and they do more voter suppression. That's fine. What Democrats do is opt for compulsory voting. So people are now required to vote because we all know when turnout is higher, Democrats win and Republicans lose because again, this is a minority party. So our argument is from a place of democracy. We're trying to, yes, technically block Republicans from expanding the Supreme Court and retaliating, but we're not doing it by putting up these barriers, you know, by imposing a constitutional amendment after we get the ideological tilt on the court that we want. No, we just expand democracy. We consolidate our democracy and franchise more people, make it so that way more voices are heard, more people have representation. And if you can't win under those circumstances, under a more democratic country, then that's on you. It's on Republicans to win over people in D.C. and people in Puerto Rico or the different states of California that could emerge hypothetically or, you know, to this new block of voters that emerge if we make voting compulsory. So what I say is, of course, you expand the Supreme Court because we don't have a choice. And if it comes down to it, if both parties go tit for tat, that's fine because that's better than the alternative of 20 to 30 years of nonstop conservative role. And I know I sound like a broken record, but it cannot be overstated how horrible it would be for another Lochner era, but except this would be, you know, the Lochner era on steroids were issues that we thought were already solved. We're having to rehash everything again, all these same fights, you know, the decades it took for LGBTQ people to get rights. We can't just let that be overturned by a rogue Supreme Court who is, in fact, ideological.  A constitutional amendment is not going to pass. You're not going to get three fourths of states to ratify it. You're not going to make this happen. But our plan actually is more feasible. The plan to expand the union add two more states, that's something that's easier. So if really they want to go tit for tat, I mean, if Democrats really played their cards right with, which I'm assuming they won't. But if they did, Democrats would have the upper hand here. They could expand the number of justices and then they could block Republicans just by making our country more democratic. So Ted Cruz here after his party has packed the Supreme Court wants to play victim and make it seem as if, oh, we have to protect the Constitution and defend ourselves. Save it.   You're the ones rushing through a confirmation process right before an election after you said we don't do that. So you're the ones who made your bed. Lie in it and cope.


The first thing that always comes to mind with people with spelling is writing. To be a good writer, be able to spell for grammar and then the knowledge of words. Not necessarily the origins, but to be able to use those words to have application of those words. And when you can spell those words, it leads to knowing those origins, those definitions, the context of the words.


Live from Nassau in the Bahamas, it's theCUBE covering Polygon 18, brought to you by PolyMath. We're welcome back to exclusive CUBE coverage in the Bahamas for Polygon 18. This is the show about cryptocurrency, token economics, and the future of work and the economies and digital nations and the CUBEs here for two days of wall-to-wall coverage and we're excited to have the CryptoKitties team here. The phenomena took over the blockchain, really started to show the value of smart conscious in a really cool, playful, fun way. Really important story. Jody, Reeback, and Alex Shee, welcome to theCUBE. Hello, welcome. Thanks for having us. So I love the shirts, love to get one for myself someday, but you got any extras, I'm sure we'll take one. We do, we do. Okay, great. We'll give you one. Love to have one. Okay, so CryptoKitties, the folks that have been living under a rock for the past year, has been a real phenomenon where people were actually creating, you describe it. Okay, so CryptoKitties, the purpose is to bring the first billion people to the blockchain and CryptoKitties was the first endeavor in order to do that. So it's really a gaming and collectible game on the blockchain. It's kind of straightforward. You buy a kitty and with your kitty, you can sell it, breed it. There's a whole marketplace.  We recently launched in China, so there's a ton of kitties coming down the pipeline, so breed your kitties. So the fun game turned into quite an interesting experiment because people love fun around tech. When tech is kind of boring, sometimes you blockchain. What does that actually mean? What happens under the hood? So you guys kind of brought a fun piece of it. Was it by design, the growth? Was it more like, was it what you expected? Take us through some of the inside, the ropes of the company, was there a moment where you say, oh my God, can you believe what's happening? Like, this is really taking off or was it playing, take us through that? Sure, so I think inherently the blockchain technology, like blockchain is not something that's inherently easy to explain. So we wanted to do that in a fun, simple way so that people could learn about smart contracts and they could learn about all the benefits about being decentralized and sort of putting trust on the network. So that was our initial sort of goal. We have an amazing team behind us, so the creative team just said, we want to bring Kitties to the blockchain. So the group with Axeems and CryptoKitties has been working on blockchain technology since 2014. CryptoKitties was our first public project. And I think the team came together very quickly. I think we built this in four to six months. I think we were all surprised with the success of it and bringing down the Ethereum network, slowing it down. So I remember the team launched and I woke up one morning with hundreds of emails from media outlets just saying, we want to do a story on you. And it was really, really exciting and the team worked really hard, so we're really proud about it.  And I think it's a great example of how you can use this fun technology in a way that people can relate to. But it also brought up some technical challenges because I think at the time and even now it takes probably the number one use case of Ethereum blockchain. I mean, I don't know, is there another use case that's actually as pervasive as crypto kiddies? You know what, I'm not sure, but I think one of the really interesting things for us was we learned a lot with the scalability and it's been interesting to see sort of other teams reach out to us and sort of sharing our learnings because I think in order to continue sort of building the ecosystem, we really need to share learnings and not hoard information. So, you know, we're definitely looking at scaling. I think, you know, one way we've addressed it is sort of building a lot off chains to speed up transactions. But I think that there's a lot to learn and it's going to take sort of the ecosystem working together and sharing ideas and knowledge to. What have you learned? What are some of the things you guys learned on this experience? Both on the kind of business side, integration side, developer side to some of the really hardcore, you know, tech infrastructure pieces. What are the learnings? I think the reality is, neither of us are technical people. So it's probably do a disservice to try and seek to that. Is there one, is there a couple things that jumped out at you? Was it performance? Was it, was it just? I think because there, you know, we're only starting to see applications built on the blockchain. You don't know what you don't know. And the team behind CryptoKitties and Axiom Zen, we built a number of products and we have a bunch of projects that we've worked and we have sort of our developer process. But when you're working with a new technology and you don't know what you're dealing with, it's hard to anticipate. And I think following best practices, leveraging, you know, other teams and working with the community, that's, I think what we learn most is you need to, you know, rely on the community and share learnings. Take a minute to talk about what you guys do there, each of you. What your role is at CryptoKitties, what you're focused on and what's going on in the company. Without giving me all those tricks and controls. Yeah, I know there's a lot we can't talk about.  I mean, what are you guys overseeing? What are you building? What's your role? Cross, we should explain a bit about Axiom Zen first and kind of the setup amongst CryptoKitties if you want to take a step at that. Sure, so Axiom Zen is a venture studio. We've been around for five years. So we have a part of the business that's focused on consumer blockchain technologies. We have quite a big enterprise SaaS business. So one of our companies is called Zenhub. If you've ever heard of them, Zenhub. And then we have sort of a joint venture part of the business where we work with companies to build and launch amazing and impactful tech companies. So CryptoKitties was born out of our consumer blockchain and specifically our Foundry. So my role with Axiom Zen is I'm chief of staff and I work with the executive team on strategy. I do, I work with the operations team. A lot of special projects and a lot of, you know with tech companies there's always things, special initiatives that are coming up and I really love to- And you got to be always learning, right?  So it's kind of like a studio meets venture incubator meets R&D meets builder. Everything. Yeah, and I think sort of, I'll let Alex speak to his role, but one of the reasons our team is 80 people. CryptoKitties team is 30, but everyone who comes and joins the team is an entrepreneur at heart. So I think that's why we've been able to accomplish so much. Alex, your role. So I recently joined the company and I came on as CFO, so. So you've run all the numbers. Man, those gas prices on the C-20. I mean, you got to keep the trains running, making sure everything, the lights are on. 80 people total, including the 30 in the CryptoKitties. Yeah, inclusive of the thing. Okay, so what's the outlook? What's the objective of the firm? You guys should continue to experiment, do new more projects. Yeah, I think, so one of our, and we wrote and published the ERC 721 token. We didn't do it, but someone a deed or surely did within the team. So I think we want to continue to focus on that. You know, we have a number of projects in the pipeline that we're not able to talk about publicly, but definitely exciting things happening, continuing to build CryptoKitties. I mentioned we did a China launch, so we're continuing to expand and just build. So yeah, we've got a lot of exciting things. China must be really big. It must be huge. Yeah, Asia must be hot. Yeah, well, I think sort of. Mobile phone usage, just incredible. They're leaders in the collectible gaming space, so it naturally made sense for us to go there. Great, well hey, congratulations. What's going to be the outlook for CryptoKitties? You mentioned the marketplace. What are some of the cool things that are going on that you can point out that people might not know? Do you want to talk about our China launch and the special Kitties, or? I think you're doing a great job, keep an eye on it. Okay, so we recently launched in China, it's Chinese New Year, so we have a bunch of sort of special Kitties being released. We just had a company call earlier today where we saw a preview of some of the Kitties that are being bred. There's Dragon Kittie, there's Dog Kittie, so I guess look at the cool Kitties, building a story of your Kitties. I think it's just to bring great stuff, and again, like I said, at Sundance we saw the VRAR world starting to really go down this road of some new creative digital, and I think this is a great example. Where I see it going, which is, you know, taking this new decentralized infrastructure and creating new experiences, so congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. I have the queue bringing new crypto experiences to our footage. Again, we're going to do a lot of blockchain, crypto currency shows. It's our first one of the year, we're going to cover Bitcoins in 2010, so we're proud of that. And look for the queue at all events, but here at the Bahamas, we'll be here for a whole other day tomorrow. Keep on watching, we've got a few more interviews to wrap up day one. We've got some big guests coming. We'll be right back after this short break.


Alrighty guys, we got Kyle here relating sports cards. We got one box of 2023 Prism Collegiate and this one is gonna be for Vincent G. Good luck Vincent, let's see what we got. Silver Aiden O'Connell, Raiders new rookie. We've got rookie Grant Morgan, Grant Morgan there, Arkansas, silver auto, Tyson Badgent, purple rookie to 75 and nice one there, Luke Schoonmaker. Rookie on the snake skin, snake skin not numbered in these Prism Collegiate. It's a nice one though. Trophy hunting Jackson Smith, Will Leviss Brilliance, silver Gronk and this one is to 199 red auto Anthony Russo from Michigan State. Got Herbert, purple number to 75 and red wave Clyde Silver Garrett Wilson and Mack Jones, Mack Jones there on the Silver Auto out of Bama. The Patriots QB, Mack Jones only 2023, little veteran auto there. Got Darnell Washington, the big man for Steelers to 199. Red wave Michael Wilson. Yeah guys, Sunday Funday tonight. Check it out, Sunday Funday mixer. Always a good time with Forrest. Got Mateo Durant, rookie for Duke on the auto. Silver Tanner Morgan and this one is the Marco Hallows, draft picks auto out of Bama. Got blue wave Mahomi, nice one there to 249 and red CD lamb to 299. Alrighty, that'll do it for you. Vincent, one box of Prism Collegiate. Thank you, sir. We'll get that right out to you.


My extended family expect me to visit them, but they allow free mixing and the girls don't wear proper hijab. How should I keep ties with them? Alhamdulillahi rabbil alamin wa salatu wa salam ala abdullahi wa rasulina Muhammad wa ala aali wa sahbihi.  This is really the principle I want to start out with, that you still have to keep ties with them. We've covered the great importance of keeping ties with relatives. And the statement of Allah Azaw Jalfa, Do you think if you turn away that you will cause corruption on the earth and cut off the ties with your family members? But so does obedience to Allah remains an obligation as well.  Say, obey Allah and the Messenger. So how do we find a way to combine these two things? That's what we have to do. How can I keep ties with them while still obeying Allah Azaw Jal? A way that brings them nearer to Allah keeps you safe and makes them feel as though the family ties are being kept. So it might be that when they see how much effort you're making to keep ties, that will actually make them reflect upon what's happening. And you can also look for ways that you can avoid or reduce the harm. So visiting them at certain times, invite them to your house instead of going to their house. When you go to the house, you can't obviously sit in the gathering with girls who are not wearing hijab. For example, you might respectfully ask them that, sorry, I would have to leave because the girl is not wearing hijab. And it's not respectful for me or it's not allowed for me to stay in there. Allah bless you in kind words. And then they may see from that that which makes them change. If they're not changing, then of course you can't be in that gathering. So you know, you have to avoid it, but that might mean visiting them at certain times. It might mean inviting them to your house instead of you going to their house. It might mean that you contact them more by phone and so on rather than visiting them. And you find wise opportunities just to inform them and educate them that what they're doing is wrong. But the basic answer is you have to obey Allah and you have to keep ties with them. So you have to find a way to reconcile. But no doubt the obedience of Allah obviously comes before everything else.  You have to excuse yourself from that gathering. But that doesn't mean that you're permitted to cut off from those relatives and Allah Azawajal knows best. Assalamu alaikum warahmatullahi wabarakatuhu. How can you do a two second action right now that will give you a share of the reward of everything we're doing on this YouTube channel? Simple. Like this video and click subscribe. Why? It will allow YouTube to recommend our videos to other users. And imagine the huge amount of reward that could be waiting for you on the day of judgement if you did that with a sincere intention of spreading the Deen of Allah. You'll be rewarded for every single person who benefits from one of our videos as a result of your like or subscribe. That's an easy two second action that you definitely don't want to miss out on. Do it now, click like and subscribe and don't forget to make that intention.


Hey guys, I'm just getting set up into the new office. I've got everything moved that I needed to move from the house to the Office got my workstation the computer that I produce all the videos on got it moved Broke down the audio server rack and put it back together and really that's the main reason I'm making this short video today as I needed to test the audio. I needed to test the sound quality of the room I also needed to test the audio as far as the settings of that equipment to make sure I didn't miss anything up because moving stuff You know knobs get turned and things like that. So the other thing I need to test at some point We need to test the internet at this location. So tomorrow. Let's do a special live stream I'm gonna live stream at 2 p.m. Central Standard Time US time And I think I'll probably go for about an hour and a half to two hours assuming We don't have any networking issues, and I hope to see all of you guys there. All right guys peace


The Columbia Network takes pleasure in bringing you suspense, Columbia's play theater of outstanding thrillers produced and directed by William Spear and scored by Bernard Herrmann. The notable melodramas from fiction and stage and screen from the world's great literature of entertaining excitement presented each week to bring you to the edge of your chair to keep you in suspense. Tonight's adventure in suspense is from the pen of Dorothy Sayers. She called it the Cave of Alibaba. Like the tale told by Scheherazadeh, a distinguished ancestress in the storytelling art, Miss Sayers' thriller deals with 40 thieves and with two magic words. For your uneasy listening then suspense presents the Cave of Alibaba. On a Saturday afternoon in January in the grim and narrow house in Lambeth a man sat eating kippers and reading the daily paper. He was smallish and spare with brown hair rather too regularly waved and a strong brown pointed beard. His double-breasted navy blue suit, his socks, tie and handkerchief were all scrupulously matched and his brown boots just didn't trifle too highly polished. He did not look a gentleman, not even a gentleman's gentleman. Yet there was something about his appearance which suggested that he was accustomed to the manner of life in good families. Superior butler perhaps, yet not old enough to be retired. A footman who had come into a legacy, yes. He had just finished eating and he was sipping his coffee when a slight noise at the front door caught his ear. Swiftly, too swiftly for a quiet little man sitting eating kippers and reading his paper on a Saturday afternoon he sprang up, he dashed through the small hallway and he flung the door open. Of course, no one in sight. The society is at least dramatic in its delivery of its correspondence. And as if he knew what he would find he shut the door and turned to the hat stand in the hall. An envelope had been placed there. It was addressed to Joseph Rogers. So Mr. Rogers opened the note. Number 21, an extraordinary general meeting will be held tonight at the house of number one at 1130. You will be absent at your peril. The word is finality. Finality? Yes, I think so. The man called Joseph Rogers stood for a moment studying the note. Then he strode to the rear of the house to a tall safe built in the wall. Carefully he manipulated a dial. He swung the safe door open. He stepped inside into a small strong room. He opened a drawer marked correspondence, placed the note inside, and then came out again. A moment to reset the lock for a new combination, and then he went back into the living room. He reached for the telephone. He lifted it from the cradle and then reconsidered. Too dangerous. He hurried upstairs and clambered into an attic. In the furthest corner he searched for and found a knuckle in the woodwork. He pressed it. A concealed trap door swung open and he was on the loft of the adjoining house. He paused before three cages in each of the McCarrie pigeon. Carefully he wrote a note, slipped it under a pigeon's wing. There you are, my pretty. There, take it easy now. There you go. Fly straight for 30. I'll send another pigeon at five and the third at six. I should have my arms sir by 9 30 at the later. Oh, I forgot one thing most important. Mr. Rogers moved through the trap door back into the attic of his own house, and once again he stood before the tall safe built in the wall. He opened the door, stepped into the strong room, moved for a moment quietly in the dark and then spoke gently. Now be good, my sweetheart. I'm depending on you. Open sesame. Come on now, old thing. Open sesame. Open sesame. That's better. That's very much better. By 9 30 his answer was back. All the little piece of paper said was a hasty old K. At a quarter before 11 he took his revolver from a locked drawer, inspected it carefully. Yes, loaded it with cartridges from an unbroken packet and left the house. He walked quickly, keeping well away from the wall. And when he climbed on a bus he sat next to the conductor where he could watch all who got on and off. By 25 minutes after 11 he was out on lonely Hampstead Heath, pausing in the shadow of a large tree to adjust a black velvet mask on which in white thread was stitched the number 21. Then he stepped briskly to the door of the villa that lay before him and what is it? Finality. Come in. Go right on through. Number one will check you in. Right. 21, sir. Lift your mask. 21. You may go on to the meeting room. Thank you, sir. The room of the villa in which Mr. Rogers now stood was a large one, a brilliantly lighted room. It was a gramophone in one corner, blaring out of jazz tunes. To its rhythm, couples, masked men and women were dancing. Some were in evening dress, some in tweets and jumpers. In another corner of the room was the bar. Mr. Rogers went up to it and asked the masked man in charge for a double whisky. He consumed it slowly, leaning on the bar. The room filled. Doesn't it? Someone moved across to the gramophone and stopped it. Mr. Rogers looked around. Number one, the massive gentleman in evening dress who had checked him in appeared on the threshold. A tall woman in black stood beside him.  Only her fine bearing, her white arms and her dark eyes shining through the eye slits proclaimed her as a woman of power, of physical attraction. The masked dancers were silent now as number one spoke. Ladies and gentlemen, we are short two members tonight. I need not inform you of the disastrous failure of our plan for obtaining the plans of the court Wendell Sam Hellescopa. Our courageous and devoted friends, number 15 and number 38, were betrayed and taken by the police. Some of you might fear that under examination these two would break down and give away our society. There is no need for such a fear. I gave the usual orders and their tongues have been silenced. Their dependence will be discreetly compensated in the usual manner. I call upon number 12 and 34 to undertake this aggrable task. They will attend me at my office for the instructions after the meeting. Would the numbers I have named kindly signify by raising their hands that I are able and willing to perform this duty? Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your poutness for the next dance. The gramophone struck up again. Mr. Rogers turned to a girl near him in a red dress. She nodded and they slipped into the movement of a fox truck. The couples shirrated solemnly and in silence. Their shadows were flung against the blinds as they turned and stepped to and fro. The girl in red spoke to Mr. Rogers. What's happened? I'm frightened, don't you? I feel as if something awful was about to happen. It does take one a bit short. Number one's way of doing things, but it's safer like that. Oh, there's poor men. No talking phrase. You know the rules. Sorry. In silence, the dance continued and then it came to an end. And then when it had finished, the dancers came again to a number one sat and waited with tense eagerness for him to speak. Ladies and gentlemen, you may wonder why this extraordinary meeting has been called. The reason is a serious one. The failure of our recent attempt was no accident. The police were not on the premises that night by accident. We have a traitor amongst us. This last failure was not the first. You'll remember the unfortunate way in which the affair of the Dinglewood pearls turned out and there were others. I'm happy to say that our minds can now be easy. All these troubles have been traced to their origin. The offender has been discovered and will be removed. The misguided member who introduced the traitor to our ranks will be placed in a position where his lack of caution will have no further ill effects. There's no chorus for alarm. Ladies and gentlemen, please take your partners for the next dance. Again, the gramophone took up its bizarre monotony. The mask dancers glided and turned and their movements were sharper, more staccato. The girl in red was claimed by a tall mask and evening dress. A hand laid on Mr. Roger's arm made him start. A small plump woman in a green jumper slipped a cold hand into his. The dance went on. When it stopped, everyone stood detached, stiffened in expectation. The endless interval was over. Number one raised his voice. Ladies and gentlemen, you will no doubt wish to be relieved of the questions on your mind. I will name the persons involved. Number 37. No, no. Silence. I swear on him. Silence. Failed in discretion. You will redoubt with. If you have anything to say in defense of your folly, I'll hear it later. Sit down. Number 37 sank down upon a chair. He pushed his handkerchief under the mask to wipe his face. Two tall men closed in upon him. The rest fell back. Ladies and gentlemen, I will now name the traitor. Stand forward. Number 21.  Number 37. This man was introduced to our society by you under the name of Joseph Rogers, formerly second footman in the service of the Duke of Denver, dismissed for petty thievery. Did you take steps to verify the statement? I did. I did as God my witness. It was all straight. I had him identified by two of the servants. I asked all over about him. The story was so old, swear it was. Number 21. Your name has been given as Joseph Rogers. Is that your real name? Is that your real name? Peter death, bread and whimsy. Silence. My compliments, your lordship. We thought Lord Whimsy was dead. He was killed so the paper set two winters ago while shooting big game in Africa. Even left a will proved to 500,000 pounds. To his mother, I believe, a dowager that is of Denver. Lord Peter Whimsy indeed. Well-known book collector, man about town, distinguished criminologist, took an active part in the solution of several famous mysteries. Taking an active part, if you don't mind. So you deliberately led us to think you were dead and became Joseph Rogers to gain entrance to our society. What has become of the real Joseph Rogers? He died abroad. I took his place. And the end of your impersonation to uncover our society. Precisely. I see. The robbery of your own set upon which we congratulated ourselves and which you helped to execute was arranged. Obviously. The robbery of the Duchess, your mother, was arranged by you. It was. It was a very ugly tiara, no real loss to anybody with decent taste. The burglary of the Wimpsup mansion, the theft of the necklace at Covent Garden, the others as well. You arranged them all. All. May I speak, by the way? You may not. Number 15, 22, 39. You have watched the prisoner. Has he made any attempt to communicate with anybody? And none. His letters and parcels have been opened. His telephone tapped and his movements followed. Even the water pipes in his house have been under observation for morse code signals. You're certain? Absolutely. Then we may be sure that he has been alone in this adventure. Well, ladies and gentlemen, please. Take the prisoner away. And be sure you explain carefully to him first the manner of his death. I am sure he'll enjoy it. Wait.  Take him away. Stop. I have something to say. Something to sell. We make no bargains with Triton. No, but listen. Do you think I haven't thought of this?  I've left a letter to the police. If I don't return tomorrow, it'll be opened. It's a bluff. The prisoner sent no letter. He's been strictly watched for a moment. I left the letter before I came to Lambeth. Then it can't contain no information of any benefit. Oh, but it does. The combination of my safe. Indeed. Has this man's safe been searched? Yes. What it has contained? No information of importance, sir. An outlaw of our organization. The name of the house. Nothing that can't be ordered and covered before morning. And did you investigate the inner compartment of the safe? You hear what he says, did you? He's trying to bluff. There is no inner compartment. I hate to contradict you, but I'm really afraid you must have overlooked it. And what did you say was in the compartment, if it does exist? The names of every member of this society with their addresses, photographs, and fingerprints. Oh, don't you say he'll come try to get this information? By doing a little detective work on my own. But you've been watched. True. The fingerprints of my watch is adorned. The first page of the collection. That statement can be proved? Certainly. The name of number 40, for example... Stop! If you mention names here, you will certainly have no hope of mercy. Bring the prisoner to my office. Ladies and gentlemen, take your partners for the next dance. Prove that I know your gang from number one through number 25. Do you want me to prove that I know the others as well? My lord, your story fills me with regret that you are not in fact a member of our society. What courage and industry are valuable in an association like ours? I fear I cannot persuade you. No, I suppose not. Ask the members kindly to proceed to the subroom. Ladies and gentlemen, I will not conceal from you the seriousness of the situation. The prisoner has resided to me 25 names and addresses which were thought to be unknown except to their owners and to me. There has been great carelessness. Fingerprints have been obtained. He showed me some photographs of them. He tells me that the book of names and addresses is to be found in the inner compartment of his safe, together with certain letters and papers stolen from the houses of members and several objects with fingerprints. I believe he tells the truth. He offers the combination of the safe in exchange for a quick death. I think his offer should be accepted. What is your opinion, ladies and gentlemen? The combination is known already. Fool! This man is Lord Peter Wimsey, a scientist of crime. Do you think he will have forgotten to change the combination? Oh, I say give him the promise. Time's getting short. You agreed? It's a bargain, Wimsey. What is the combination? The word of the combination is unreliability. And the inner door, the inner compartment. In anticipation of the visit of the police, the inner door is open. Good. Number 12 and 36. You will go to the president's house and why should any more members of his family? That's right. I agree. Nobody ought to be trusted. Then what, ladies and gentlemen, do you suggest?  You're the only one that knows all the names.  I second that motion. Is the wish of the meeting then that I should go? No. I say no. Now, don't go. Number one is our president, the head and soul of our society. If anything should happen to him, where should we be? You've all blundered. We have your carelessness to thank for all this. Do you think we should be safe for five minutes if he were not here to repair your folly? No, there's something in that. If you will pardon my suggesting it, the lady appears to be in a position peculiarly favorable for the reception of the president's confidences. The contents of my modest volume will be no news to her. Why should she not go herself? Because I say she must not. If it is the will of the meeting, I'll go. Give me the key of the house. Here. Is your horse watched? No. If I have not returned in two hours, act for the best to save yourselves. And do what you like with the president. The president has been gone two hours. Traitor! What's happened to him? How should I know? Perhaps he's looked after himself and gone while the going was good. Liar! He'd never do that. What have you done with him? Speak! Or I'll make you speak! I can only form a guess, madam. I'm afraid that your president may quite inadvertently have left the door of the inner compartment closed behind him, in which case... Yes. Well, let me explain the mechanism of my safe. The inner compartment has two doors. The outermost most opens outward with an ordinary key.  Undoubtedly he will have wedged open that inner door. Undoubtedly, madam, but the sole purpose of that inner door is to appear to be the only one. Hidden behind the hinge of that door is another, a sliding panel, also left open. Inside the compartment is the big heavy ledger containing all the information about this society. This ledger lies on a steel shelf. Do I make myself clear? Yes, yes, yes. Go on. The steel shelf is balanced on a concealed spring. When the weight of the book, the ledger, is lifted. The shelf rises almost imperceptibly, and in rising it makes an electrical contact. Now, let me draw a picture. Your president steps into the inner compartment, sees the book, takes it up, anxiously to examine to see if it's the right one. The shelf rises, the electrical contact is made, and the steel panel behind him slides into place, he steps. You devil! What is the word that opens the inner door? Quick, it's the word! Do you remember the story of Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves? Well, when I had this safe constructed, my mind went back, well, call me sentimental, if you will, to my childhood. The words that open the door are open sesame. How long can a man live in this devil's trap of yours? Oh, I should think he might hold out for a few hours if he didn't use up all the oxygen by hammering and yelling. I imagine if we go there at once, we'll be able to get him out all right. I'll go myself. I think you'd better take me with you. Why? Well, I'm the only person who can open the door. But you've given me the word. Yes, you have the word, but this door of mine, I'm rather proud of it. You know, it's my own invention. It's the latest thing. It will open to the words open sesame all right, but to my voice only. Your voice? I'll chip your voice through my hands. What do you mean, your voice only? Don't clutch my throat like that. You'll wreck my voice and then the door might not recognize it. Hey, that's better. The door got stuck for a week once and when I had a cold. It's what he says true. Is it possible? Perfectly possible, madam. It'll have a microphone arrangement. Could be done also with light vibration. And we must let him go. Take the ropes off him. Let him go? Nothing. He doesn't go to blabber the police. The president's done in, that's all. And we'd all better make traps while we can. It's all up, boys. Right, chuck his fella down the cellar and fasten him in. I'll go and destroy the ledgers. 32, you know where the switch is. Give us a quarter of an hour of clear, then you can blow the place to glory.  He's your president, your leader. I won't let it happen. I won't. I'll free this man myself. Here, none of that. Let me go. Let go of me. Think. Let me go. It'll be light in an hour or two. The police may be here in any moment. The police? Oh, yes. Yes, you're right. No, we mustn't imperil the safety of all for just one man. He himself would not wish it. Throw this man in the cellar and let's get out of here while it's time. Here. This is good enough. Leave him here. Right. Let's go. You chaps. I say, it's lonesome down here in this cellar. You might at least leave the light on. Don't worry about the dark. That taking you here is the time cue for the bomb that's going to blow out this place. It's all set. You won't have long to wait. Not long. Who is it? Who's there? Well, if it isn't two. My compliments, madam, on your loyalty to your presence. Quick, quick. They've set the time fuse. The house is mined. Follow me as fast as you can. Number one must be saved and only you can do it. How did you manage to? There's no time for questions. Get up and follow me. You will release him. You promise? I promise, but I warn you, madam, that this house is surrounded. When my safe door closed, I'm here. Get your fellows away. The house is going up in a minute. Inspector Parker, are you all right? I'm a bit winded. About half a dozen of them got blown up. The rest we bagged. Who's this? She's called number two. We must save him. Where's your car? One of your men down to get it. Johnson, bring that car here. I've got the number one of the whole company. Quietly asphyxiating at home. I promise we'll get back and save him. He's the bloke that we've been wanting. The man at the back of the Morrison case and the Hope Wilmington case and hundreds of others. Is this it? Quite a contraption. Yes, I only hope he hasn't upset the adjustment by something. Oh, please, honey. I hope you haven't hurt my voice. You sound all right. I can only be conversational. Come on, old thing. Show us your paces. Open sesame. Open sesame. Confound you. Open sesame. Open sesame. Take me see. No, he's not. He'll live to stand his trial. And so, all's right with the world. As it always is when Lord Peter Wimsey is involved. The Cave of Alibaba by Dorothy Sears was the story which gave us tonight's suspense. Suspense. Suspense is produced by William Spear. Our guest director for this evening was Robert Louis Sheehan. Tonight's radio drama was written by Peter Lyon and scored by Bernard Herman. Romney Brent was Peter Wimsey, William Moulton played number one and Ira Gerald, the lady in the case. Others in the cast were Kathleen Cordell, Victor B. Croft, Roland Bottomley, J. W. Austin, William Podmore, Ian Martin and William Moulton. Next Wednesday, suspense will not be heard because of a special All Star Hollywood broadcast which Paramount Pictures will present. Two weeks from tonight at this time, Columbia will bring you another selected story from the world's great literature of thrills. Another study in Suspense for a Kroger and this is the Columbia Broadcasting System.


Well, good morning. I hope everyone's doing great. It is an honor to be here with you today. And I bet you are wondering why Google is calling all duck stars, although I think Jim kind of gave you a little tip. So the reality is, is Open Source has tons of rock stars. And we have made amazing software that's being used all around the world. And let's face it, we like when people use our software. It allows us to scale helping others. And it feels kind of good when people use our stuff. So the question is, how do we get more people to use our software? And the answer is documentation. And there's lots of research into this. This is just one survey from Digital Ocean that shows that documentation is the number one driver for adoption. And it makes sense, right? Because documentation shows us how to use the software. And it also makes projects more accessible. So we need duck stars to write this documentation. But we have a problem. We don't have enough duck stars writing documentation, people contributing to documentation. As you can see in this survey, only 4% of the participants actually were contributing to docs. And that's a problem. It's a problem for Google. And it's a problem for our industry. And it's something that Google Open Source wants to address immediately. And we did research earlier in the year to understand, what are the blockers for people contributing to documentation? And we found that there were three main blockers, time, support, and reward. So as you know, a contributor only has so much time. And they're going to choose the contribution path that's easy and rewarded. And with code, that's what they get. It's an easy path. It's well understood. It's documented. And there are all kinds of reward and recognition programs for the rock stars out there. But that's simply not the case for documentation. And so we offer these pro tips to help encourage contribution to your documentation and your projects. The first pro tip is to target your first time contributors. They are, well, it's a great path to make it just easier to contribute. Do you remember the first time you contributed? It was a little bit scary. Well, this makes it a little less scary offering this path. But if you do choose to go this route, you need to give them a very smooth process to know how to contribute to documentation. You have to document how to contribute to documentation. It's a little bit meta, but it's really important. And we also have to take out the mystery of how to write good docs and provide templates, which is another area that we're working on right now. And then lastly, we need to make our doc stars feel valued. And we need to include them in the reward and recognition programs that our projects are offering. And we need to include them in the release notes as well. So we hope that these pro tips help you and your projects. And Google is starting to use them, too. But we feel a sense of urgency around this topic. And we want to start moving the needle so that it's not 4% contributing to documentation, but 10% and 20% of our contributors focusing in this area. And so we are putting our money where our mouth is. And we have launched season of docs. And as Jim explained, it's similar to our Google summer of code. But with this program, we are paying tech writers to work with open source projects to help them with their documentation. And I am really pleased that this year we're going to be working with these 50 open source projects. And we have just assigned the tech writers to them. So the work is just getting underway. And I am really excited to see what kind of an impact we're going to make together. And also, what kind of learnings we're going to get from this. And we will definitely be sharing all the learnings with the greater open source community as our way to give back so that we can all improve together. And so if you are interested in season of docs, Google Summer of Code, or any of our programs and projects, please check us out on opensource.google.com, where you could follow us on Twitter. And of course, don't forget to thank a doc star, because we need them.


Our next caller is Brenda from Michigan. Brenda, how can we help you? Hi. So, I'm going to try to keep it short. I just had a baby about seven months ago, but I am in the military, and thankfully they changed the standards that we now have a year to get back to where we were. It used to be six months. I'm just struggling a bit. I kind of lost all of my strength, all of my endurance, everything I worked hard for. So I'm starting back from zero, and I'm trying to do everything at once, which is lose the weight, get my pull-ups up, and get my run time down. And it's just a lot in like, I have five months left. So I was just hoping I could get some advice on how, I don't want to push it because my issue is, I'll push it and then I'll just quit because my body breaks down. It gets tired, obviously. And that's just kind of what I'm struggling with, is how to do it all at once without breaking down. Okay. Well, Brenda, are you breastfeeding at the moment? Still are you done? Not anymore. Not anymore, no. All right, that's good because it gets a little more challenging when we're talking about fat loss while breastfeeding. Well, here's the good news. Losing weight might make it harder to get a heavier deadlift or a squat, but it actually makes pull-ups and running faster easier. So all of your goals don't actually conflict. They actually help each other out a little bit. The weight loss is going to come from diet. I don't want you to try to exercise the weight loss because that's going to be a losing, that's going to be a totally losing approach. Now, as far as getting better at all of those things that you're doing, you want to do the minimal amount of work to see results because then you can move from there. All you want to do is do as much as you possibly can and see if you can recover from it, but rather do enough to get the improvement to start happening. And then once you start to see the improvement and it starts to happen, you feel good, then you can add a little bit more. So my next question is, what does your routine look like now? So right now, I work out about five days a week. That's pretty much the most I can do. I try to fit in a sixth or seventh in there, but it's just not practical with the baby. I'm kind of alone right now. My husband works somewhere else. So I work out five days a week for about an hour. I do weightlifting every day, all those five days, and then I do some formic cardio for 15 minutes. I try not to run that often because I know my body and I've had two knee surgeries before. So I try to limit my running and I've been doing the rower. So pretty much that's where I'm at. Don't forget, I think, because you have this written up here, so I want the audience to hear this. You need to be able to do three miles sub 30 minutes. You need to also be able to do a minimum of three pull-ups, and then you also need to be able to do a minute 10 plank. Correct. Okay, so this is important because you obviously have to the way where you're getting back in shape is being measured is by these things, correct? There's nothing else that you have to do physically to prove that you're back in the shape. Correct. And those are all the minimums. So obviously I'd like to do more than that because that's your baseline score, which isn't a very good score. So since you have something very specific like this, we should build your training routine geared around that. But that doesn't mean that you should be like, for example, the three mile 30 minute run, I definitely wouldn't have you do that every day or even three times a week. I'd have one day a week where you're challenging that and then maybe shorter bouts, maybe two other times in the week. But you definitely want to build your routine around the pull-ups, the planks, and this ability to run. So I don't know if I would want you to not run whatsoever because you're going to be challenged that way. Yes, rowing will give you some cardio endurance and help some carry over to that.  You flip-flop them and they wouldn't perform as well, even though they both have great cardiovascular endurance just because their body has not adapted to that specific modality. So we do, and I think five days of weight training is a lot. I think you could get a lot done in two to three days of lifting and then the rest of the time and focus I would be put around these three skills. Practice those things. How many pull-ups can you do now? I'm at one now. Okay, so do you have space in your home for a pull-up bar? Yes. Okay, so put the pull-up bar up, get a resistance band, tie it around the pull-up bar so you can use it to give you assistance. And I would practice one pull-up, I don't know, five times a day throughout the day. Well, you step on the band so it helps you so it's not like a hard one pull-up. It's kind of a moderate one pull-up. And you just practice that throughout the day. Planks, how long can you plank for now? I'm at a minute 25 right now. Oh, so you already beat that, right? Yes. Yeah, so, I mean, if you want, you could practice that same way 30 seconds so you could do like a 30-second plank a few times a day. Those two things right there will get way better just from doing that practice. The run, I think Adam gave you great advice. You could practice once a week for the three-mile run and then do a couple shorter runs. And then maybe one or two days a week of full-body traditional resistance training. And on those days, you don't need to do the practicing of the pull-ups and the plank. Those days is just the resistance training. And I think you'll see some pretty rapid results that way. Yeah, I mean, I agree with the protocol they're presenting in terms of also keeping because that is like a specific goal you need to consider. But trying to kind of ease up on trying to tackle everything at once, especially in the beginning. Really just focusing on your strength training two to three times a week is the major focus there is to get your body back in strong and resilient. The cardiovascular adaptation is going to come naturally as you start to kind of ramp it up there towards your five-month sort of goal there. So I would definitely try to taper that in the beginning and start adding to that in terms of intensity and then go from there. But really, the strength should be the focus. And like Sal said, with having a pull-up bar there, just continually practice that as frequently as possible. Yeah, you're not training it or you're practicing it. You just hop up on the pull-up bar when you walk by, put the strap in your foot, do one. And it's like moderately hard. If you wanted to, you could probably do five. That's it.  And you'll see the strength will go up very quickly with that particular movement. And to be more specific with the running since you mentioned that you've felt your body break down before, part of why you probably feel that way is trying to run three miles or more as fast as you can in addition to strength training four to five times a week. If you pull back on the weight training so you're not pushing so hard there and also scale back on the distance that you're running, I think a lot. So for me, it would look something like this if I was coaching you. You would do one to two days. We're just mile runs. When we do the mile run, we're trying to obviously improve your time every time that you do that. One time a week, you would do a mile and a half. Also trying to continually improve that mile and a half time week over week. And then the only one day a week would we actually test at the max distance, which would be the three miles. And then you're trying to slowly improve that. And that's all I would need you to do. And you would be surprised how fast your body would acclimate to that and get good at it. And then the practicing, like the guy said with training, but if you are feeling like your body is breaking down, that's your clear indication. You're just you're overdoing it. You don't need to do that. There is like a program that's somewhat similar. We don't really highlight very often, which is our OCR program does, you know, focus specifically on grip training, but also pull ups and distance running. And so there is a bit of a protocol in there to try and like meet this timed run. But so that's something to, if it's not, it's not as quite as specific as like what you need in terms of like what your standards are, but it would be something complimentary to that. Yeah, it's pretty intense though. I would definitely work up to it. Yeah, work up to that. You know what, Brenda? Do you have maps prime pro? I don't. All right, we'll send that to you because we talked about your knees hurting you. You probably have some mobility issues in your hips or ankles that can help fix that particular issue so that you could start running. So we'll send that over to you. Okay. And you know what? Justin mentioned OCR. We'll send that to you as well. I wouldn't jump into that though until you're feeling good and strong. Or just peel, just pull out a one day out of it. You don't need to follow the whole protocol. I know we're just modify it. Yeah, Justin is alluding to that because of the pull ups that we program in there and the running. So I would look at that as far as the programming and how we set that up and use some of that guidance and then maybe one day a week you can follow one of the foundational training days in there and that will benefit you. But I wouldn't actually, to Sal's point, follow the whole program to a tee because it's a little bit more than what you probably need right now but you could probably get some value from it so we'll send that to you too. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks, Brenda. This is a common theme, obviously, but how many times have you guys experienced this? You do less, you get better. The results finally come. Yeah, and it's always, every time that happens to him I'm always like, obviously, right? But it's such a hard switch to make mentally because usually... It doesn't compute. Yeah, well usually doing more and working harder equals better, right? It's usually not the opposite but often in many cases, especially with people like Brenda who are working so hard and have a specific goal, oftentimes that's what needs to happen. Well, especially when you're, you know, she's weight training five days a week and then also running. So much. They're so conflicting, you know. So she'd be far better off doing mobility three, four days a week and only strength training once and then focusing on the run if she wants to get good at the run but the reason why she feels the body breaking down all the time is she's probably sore and tight and immobile from all the strength training and not addressing mobility and then she goes out and goes for a run for three miles or what like that and the body just says FU that doesn't feel good and so then it probably sets her back. So there's definitely a way to scale up to this to be able to do all that. Gotta consider the recovery process.