Aniakawa's cuts of justice in a Bujaran Friday ordered the federal government to pay journalists Agba Jalingo 30 million Naira as compensation for ill treatment and torture, violent detention and cross river states. In a judgment, the court said the journalist was arrested and chained to a deep freezer for about 34 days without being charged to cut, brutalized and dehumanized and this action taken on Jalingo's behalf by Serap 6 from this court reparation of inhuman treatment and torture meted out to him. And according to the court, the act violated international human rights treaties, particularly the African chatter on human and people's rights to which Nigeria is a state party. Adding that the Nigerian government has floated the provisions of this treatise on international fair trial standards. Serap council Fermi Falana via a statement welcomed the court ruling saying the judgment could not have come at a more opportune time that now in view of the ongoing brutalization of helpless Nigerian citizens by the police and other security agencies. Hello. Hope you enjoyed the news. Please do subscribe to our YouTube channel and don't forget to hit the notification button so you get notified about fresh news updates.


Hey guys, it's Nate, aka The Foot Accountant. Welcome back to the channel. A little double upload for the Wednesday because we have some headliner stuff going on and we're still gonna try to make some Thursday flipping investments today. Now I have done a lot of my investing already and I'm curious to see what the market does into Wednesday because a lot of stuff went up already from Tuesday as the wrote to the finals. My bad, hit the mic, wrote to the finals and the freeze cards went out of packs. A lot of stuff on the market actually ended up rising in the past 24 hours or so inside of FIFA. So I wanna talk about right now what I think still could be investable regardless of whether you see a little bit of a drop today. I just wanna kinda talk to you guys about Thursday investments that you still could be making because there's gonna be prices, right? We do this all the time. There's prices that you can find on Tuesdays, on Wednesdays, literally right before rewards, you can find cards that are low, you can find cards that you can buy for a rewards flip. Now I wanna take you guys through my transfer list right now because this is the best way for me to explain to you what I'm liking from rewards this week. We're gonna take a look at a team of league prediction for what team of league could be coming out today. It's looking bad. Again, another poor team of the week, honestly, unless EA throws something into juice it up. So that means red picks won't be affecting too much, I guess, link investments at all this week. But I'm really looking at a lot of stuff that I saw last week as well. Pretty similar to last week, I'm looking at lower budget cards, even though we're not sure about headliners and team of the year and what's gonna be happening with that, I feel like a lot more people that have started the game recently inside of FIFA 21 are still gonna be pumped about buying cards, upgrading their team from rivals rewards, from foot champions rewards. So a lot of the cards you're gonna see here on my transfer list are like, you know, most of them are 200K or under and a lot of them are under the 100K range. And it's a lot of those popular players. One thing that I saw last week was a lot of players that are on that low level budget, right? 150K and under, a lot of those players out of pack informs and promo cards did exceptional last week. This Pepe, Europa League wrote to the final, went from 43,000 coins last week to 57. He's back down in the 40s. This is one of my favorites. It can be completely honestly this week. I have a couple of him, I think, right around the range of about 48 to 49,000 coins. I'm a big, big fan of this one because again, this is just a card that a lot of people are gonna be using in the early stages, right? Or if they're running a cheap team, this guy's pretty rare too, right? And he went up a lot last week. I think this week he can go up pretty high as well. Diogo Jota is another one as a basically similar card in terms of a team of the tournament item, but just a low rated player in foot that a lot of people are probably gonna want to try to upgrade their teams with. Now the number one tip I will give you guys is since the market's kind of dead right now, sniping works as always, but look at the open bids because there's so many open bids that go for three, four, 5,000 coins under the lowest buy now and especially when you're at a price range under 100K, that's basically covering your tax amount. So definitely look at open bids for a few of these cards. I've seen multiple of these Jotas pop up, a multiple of the Pepe's pop up around that price range that are, you know, you can get on bid. As you can see here on my transfer targets, a lot of these cards that I'm looking at have been open bids, right? This Neuer, this Werner I was watching, this DePie. I'm watching a lot of the open bids because you can catch a lot of deals there and quick flip cards for profit, but also, you know, get yourself a better deal in terms of a card you're gonna be selling after rewards. So those are a couple of cards I'm liking. I have this Neuer in form because of the Alaba that has been invested in so much this week. Road to the Final is up a lot. Road to the Final Alaba is flying and that's because a lot of people are investing but sometimes when people invest in cards like that, they actually put them into their team and play with them too. So this card right now, he was almost 190,000 coins last week after rewards. He's back down to 170. Neuer is a very rare card in this game. I like this price. I like this card a decent amount. I like Don Rume because we might be getting Scrinny R this week. We might be getting an Izzo, center back as well in the Serie A and this is kind of just like the best Serie A goalkeeper other than Han Danovich. I like this card a lot because he's very rare. Record breakers are pretty rare. This guy at around 100,000 coins is a steal. I got him right there at 100K. Werner last week was a big one. He went from like 230 to 260. So I got this one at 234 today. I got this Mara's at 108. He should be going to like 120. Actually, I should be pumping this up because he should be going to about 120K after rewards. I have a couple taverniers there. I'm just kind of holding on to those. I bought them at 20K. Hoping to get some Lazies at 27 and then I have these Andres and these Kamaras because I'm a huge fan of both of these guys. I think these guys haven't gone up enough just yet but those are very meta players that rise almost every week, man. So the best way to really find stuff this week in terms of what you should be flipping, I've kind of told you the range that you might want to be, you might want to be looking towards in terms of a price value and just kind of what cards to look at. But let's take a look at some graphs so I can actually show you cards that you might want to keep an eye on. This Rafinha 84 rated right mid, Pacey Brazilian player from the Premier League, right? Last week he went from 104,000 coins all the way up to 118,120. That's a really solid rise when you only have about 6K of tax when you're selling at the peak. 6K of tax means you're making almost not quite 10K a card but pretty close to 10K a card right there on that Rafinha. That's solid profit, right? That's solid profit on a card like that right there. That was a very nice rise. I think this Mendy card is going to be a good one this week. He's already up a decent amount. He was in the mid 30s. He's already up to 42K. So that's a bit inflated already. But basically what you can do is you could take a look through here. I bought a Vardy tonight on stream at 410. That was way too low. Sancho was 274. That was way too low. I didn't buy it though. VVD is looking pretty cheap right now. Just kind of scroll through these team of the weeks and again, look for those cheaper players. Easy with Carasco. He might be getting a team of the week today. And look and see if they had a fluctuation last week. Here's the Neuer, right? Here's the Neuer card from last week. He went from 163 to 189, 190. Has now dropped into 170s. And I think he's going to go back up to the 180, 190 range on the market. So I really like the out of pack stuff again this week. Big fan of that. You know, a guy like this Llorente is 175 because like this, I think this prediction right here has Carasco 86. And that would be a card a lot of people would be interested in. So I'm kind of taking this in, getting interested in it. And that's of course why you're seeing Llorente has risen so much. And also why you have seen this Torea card rise so much as well. I'm pretty sure this Torea was like 40K or 45,000 coins at his lowest, 50K. And he's already up to 60K. He's up like 10K already from people buying this card. Yeah, he was in the 40s. I remember seeing him in the 40s. But this guy's getting invested in it a lot for the possible link investment to Carasco. This team of the week is looking real bad, right? Casamiro, Langley, Izzo, Scrinnear, Phillip Maxx, Carasco, Muriel, and Chalhanoglu are like the best guys in this team of the week. And if you look at the foot head prediction, it's basically the same. It's not looking good this week for that team of the week. So that tells me that probably if you pack somebody in reds this week, you're most likely not gonna be using them. This Juaul Felix is actually looking pretty good right now. He was 80K earlier in the week and under 80K, but he was even higher than that just a few hours ago. He was in the mid to upper 80s, 85, 87K. He peaked at a little bit ago. If you can find this in the low 80s on either console or under 80K, that would be fantastic. So I think there's gonna be a lot of buys again on the lower tier range because a lot of people kind of forget about these earlier team of the weeks. This Zaha Valverde at 180, that's not a bad price. Now I can't actually afford this card right now because I don't have the coins. But this Valverde has been tinkering around the 190,000 coin price range before today. And if he's actually 180 right now, that's kind of cheap because usually he's around 190 plus. And as you can see, he usually is around 190 plus. That must have been an undercut. That informs Zaha. The first inform is the one that I flipped last week. It was a great week in league flip, man. He went from like mid 120s all the way up to like 147, almost to 150. So a 20K rise on that card, 25K rise. This week it might not be as good. But again, if you can find this in the low 130s, I'm a big fan or under 130K for that card. That's a pretty good one. And then of course we look at guys like this every single week, right? We look at my guy Ali Watkins. First of all, I like this card because it sells for lazies. So freaking well because he has the first inform making the second one hard to find. This guy in the mid to low 50s, like 54,000 coins is a buy for me, right? He's 57, 58. He's probably going 60,000 coins plus this weekend. I like him a lot. And then again, maybe on a bit of a higher note, I showed you a card that I had on my transfer targets was Timo Werner, who was 236K at the moment. I'll show you his graph because his graph went kind of crazy last week. He went from 239 on the PlayStation and 209 on the Xbox all the way to 236 on the Xbox and 263. So he basically went up 30,000 coins on both consoles when your tax year is right around 13K, 12K, 12.5K. That's a pretty solid after-tax profit per card. So watch this Werner. I think some of these cards that are just the lower tier team of the week from earlier on, they just kind of get forgotten about. And for whatever reason, they just get forgotten about, man. And it makes a possible investment scenario where you have not very many people investing in them, which means the market rise is a true market rise and it's not really hindered or flawed by people trying to actually buy up those cards and you don't have any undercutting and stuff like that from other people who are trying to sell. So if you can find some of these team of the weeks from earlier on, I like that a lot because there's less competition and less people investing in those cards. Now let's talk about a buy time and a sell time. Again, whatever happens today for content on Wednesday with a team of the week, that might be a timeframe where you can say, I'm gonna be on the market, try to catch some undercuts. If we get some information about like a scream, or not a scream, sorry. I saw Firmino and I thought of scream Firmino for a second right there. If we get a loading screen about anything related to the upcoming headliners promo or team of the year or anything like that, that might cause a little bit of panic pre-rewards, which could create another opportunity to buy some of those cards again and find some deals and make some coins off of that. So just keep an eye out for some of that. But other than that, man, it's honestly a per card basis. It's per card basis. I'm sticking to the out-of-packs stuff this week. Out-of-packs cards, they just fluctuate in general. Could you go with golds? Yeah, you probably could buy some golds this week. And let's take a look at golds just one second. Mbappe and Neymar really aren't weak in the flipping investments. Rashford is up about eight to 9,000 coins on both consoles from where he was at on his very lowest on Monday. When they dropped the second party bag SBC, he was down at like 84, 85K. He has bounced back 10K since then. If you bought then, you're chilling, right? If we get like tradable pack supply or anything today that would make this card drop down, that could be another buy window, I suppose. Just remember when you're buying these cards, always try to get them with a good chem style because that is huge and that will help you out. Pogba, 107. Pogba gets undercut all the time according to Footman, man. It's just like a Footman glitch. I'm kind of liking Pogba this week because of the French links.  So this week, I don't think you'll have that many issues with over-investing with this Pogba. So this could be a good week in the E-flip as well. He might go from like 115 to almost 130. If you can try to snag him under 110, like this 111, is that getting insta-bought? It's not. So maybe if you can try and snag him on PlayStation in the 110 range or lower, that'd be great. If we're on Xbox, you'd probably, Xbox, it looks pretty low right now, probably like 90K or below would be a good buy for Pogba. But some of the golds just go up every single stinking week, right? Even a guy like Salah, Joe Gomez maybe? Cause again, you have a very new crowd that is playing this game right now. People that got the game for Christmas, for the holidays, they're on probably lower budgets, right? So that's gonna create some of those lower tier cards possibly getting a bit of a rise. That's why we're buying the lower tier informs and out-of-packs specials, but it could potentially impact the golds as well. This Salah card last week did very well with the SBC and content that came out with like Wynaldum and stuff and the Firmino SBC. If you're doing the Firmino SBC, you might be linking Salah to him. So watch this card again this week. I think it could do decent just because again, on the lack of the right wings in the Premier League. But again, I'm sticking to Premier League, French, Brazil. Just look through some of those past specials, man. I think that would be just the best place to go. Get on the bids, right? Konate would be a good one. Renato Sanchez is a good one. He fluctuates literally every week. This La Porte fluctuates on his own really crazy. He's probably gonna be pretty expensive post-rewards this week. French center back. He's really low on PlayStation right now. He was 500K just a couple hours ago. He hits like 530, 540 every single day. You might find an open bid on a card. I saw it just a minute ago. There was an open bid under 500. Where was it at? 499 right there for that one. Are there any other open bids? There's not really. But you might be able to snag an open bid like right before rewards. So just because you haven't bought your weekend league flipping investments right, and it's like right before rewards, doesn't mean it's a problem, right? I think you can still make some of those investments like right before, get on the open bids, especially if it's late night. That can be a great time to make some of those buys. Now let's talk sell time, right? Sell time for any of these cards. I'm probably gonna be getting most of my cards out, done and dusted, flipped and profited. Probably Friday morning would be my deadline, right? Now what we have seen is, so many people continue to do Thursday flipping and it's a very popular thing to do on this game. So you see a lot of selling on Thursday after rewards. If you don't get many sales Thursday after rewards, yes there is a little bit more risk of EA putting out some sort of loading screen, some sort of content that makes your stuff crash down in value. But a lot of times it's worth taking that risk. And if you bought meta cards, cards that people wanna actually use, they continue to go up into Friday morning and that's when even we look at a lot of these footprint graphs, you see the peak is on Friday. That Friday morning timeframe, when most people are done selling their investments, so stuff continues to naturally rise as people who actually want to buy those cards for week in league keep buying them, you see a lot of those out of pack cards, even the gold cards reach their peak. So that's what I would say again, the popular thing now is to actually hold your investments through Thursday. Take a little bit extra risk and hold those cards because sometimes we even get content on Thursday and the cards still go up into Friday. So that's just something to kind of keep in mind. That's what I would do. If you don't wanna take any risks though, you could sell pre six PM on Thursday. That's the safe way to do it. I'm probably gonna be holding through. I'm literally 100% invested right now. I hope this Vardy can sell though before rewards because I would like to put this 440K into other small cards instead of just this Vardy. Although I think you will do pretty decent this week. That could be like, I could literally buy like five Pepes with that and then some. So I would love to be able to flip this and then buy something else. But that's kind of a Thursday flipping video for this week boys. Kind of a normal week. Kind of the same guidelines as last week in my opinion. I like the cheap stuff. I like the meta stuff. And cause that's the stuff that went up last week. Again, use foot bin the most. The best tool to use for looking at those fluctuations is 100% foot bin. I don't think there's any new objective cards that we have to worry about this week in terms of what people got that they might wanna play with. Maybe some more La Liga teams. Maybe like a Sergio Ramos gold or an inform would be a look because of the people that did the Kappa. But that has now expired. So still I think people are rocking a lot of untradable teams as well. Which means league one players like that DePie that I looked at could be pretty decent. Just kind of keep in mind since we're heading into headliners slash team of the year, whatever's gonna happen. A lot of people are still using kind of the untradable mindset or like the low cost mindset which is why we're focusing on those lower tier cards for rewards flips. So if you enjoyed this video, smash your thumbs up on it, comment down below if you have any questions and subscribe to the channel if you're new. It's been Nathan Ford Account. Catch you guys later. Peace out.


We are going to discuss in the gas phase I will do so you have ln P I suppose I have tried the chemical potential first so the model for the chemical potential is somewhat unique you have different kinds of models in the condensed phase but for the gas phase the model almost always like this where P by convention is in atmospheres because mu I0 is the chemical potential at the temperature T and pressure equal to 1, 1 atmosphere because mu I0 represents 1 atmospheres this P is also an atmospheres actually P by 1 so you will get absurd answers if you use millimetres of mercury for example sometimes the data is given in that form then you will get 760 times the answers that you have to it. So we are doing this calculation Vi bar I told you about equations of state so Vi bar is from experiment or again it is always from experiment or from equation of state in which here again parameters are from experimental data from fit of experimental data. The chemical potentials have to satisfy the Gibbs-Duhem equation but in this case the chemical potential satisfy the Gibbs-Duhem equation if log P I satisfies the Gibbs-Duhem equation because mu I0 is a constant RT log P is a constant RT log Yi will satisfy the Gibbs-Duhem equation anyway right we have shown that is the ideal mixture so the only other term left is RTLN Fi if RTLN Fi satisfies the Gibbs-Duhem equation then you are through RTLN Fi will satisfy the Gibbs-Duhem equation if Vi bar satisfies the Gibbs-Duhem equation the Gibbs-Duhem equation is basically linear equation so I can go term by term and I can move through is the equation is simply sum over Xi partial of mu I with respect to Xj equal to 0 sum over I equals 1 to R this is for all J except that there are only R-1 independent mole fractions. So this is satisfied say GDE is satisfied sum over Xi partial LN Fi this implies Xi partial of Vi bar with respect to Xj is equal to 0 so as far as the gas phase is concerned while the Gibbs-Duhem equation is central to the determination of composition dependence of the chemical potential we would not worry about it because we take Vi bar from experimental data or from equations of state when you take it from equation of state Vi bar again is derived from the expression for V from its definition right it is Vi bar is simply by definition partial with respect to Ni of V at constant T P so the Vi bars will automatically satisfy the Gibbs-Duhem equation in fact when the Gibbs-Duhem equation was first introduced in the universities is it derived by Gibbs very casually it is big monograph 1880s or something took about 1920 before it came into the books 1910 on I so then at that time the experiment researchers were not sure the Gibbs-Duhem equation satisfied so they do experiments extensively calculate this number calculate the right hand side and see if it actually went to 0 so there are many papers in the early up to 30s or even 40s that will say hence the Gibbs-Duhem equation is verified then they got by that time Gibbs had become an icon everybody understood that he was near God as you could get in thermodynamics as we understand it so they said here after the Gibbs-Duhem equation we assume to be correct and if you collect partial experimental data you can complete the data by using the Gibbs-Duhem equation which is what is done very often so the Gibbs-Duhem equation is assumed to hold but here you could get mistakes with Vi bar if your data is wrong if the Gibbs-Duhem equation is not satisfied then now the it is the fault of the data no longer the fault of Gibbs the theory is assumed to be more correct than the experiments you do unless you are extraordinarily careful so as far as the gas phase is concerned we do not use this equation at all we simply go with Vi bar data and calculate this there are hundreds of ways of doing this calculation you can make life simpler by various means let me take for example first of all let me okay let me take the virial equation of state just easy to use it most equations of state are not explicit in the volume it is volume comes out as one of many roots and you have to choose the correct route and then you have to do this differentiation so it is very difficult equations of state will only relate PVT after calculating we have to do a differentiation you can do it numerically trivially but do it analytically is a bit of a nuisance since I am only looking at the concept let me just say the virial equation of state is the following this is also very important Camerling onus said this he said PV by RT can be expanded in a density series he knows it is one for an ideal gas plus B by V plus C by V squared plus etc he said you can write an expansion like this you can show in molecular theory that B corresponds to first of all the first term corresponds to no interaction between molecules the second term corresponds to pair interactions between molecules two at a time and C corresponds to interactions of three molecules at a time without counting the pair interactions that is the total interactions will be the total potential NG will be some over PI this is the external potential suppose you had gravity and counted then you have to take that mg xh into count if you had a box of molecules one molecule is at a higher level than the other so there will be small differences in potential but this is generally negligible unless you have a system with magnetic materials inside and you apply a 500 Tesla magnetic force magnetic field from outside then you can have them dancing then you better take this into count then the molecule on top will have a difference between in properties from the molecule at the bottom next is Phi ij pair interaction some over all pairs some over Phi ijk plus etc this Phi ijk the potential includes up to here all the pair interactions then there is a correction due to triplet interactions the effect of the third molecule on the pair interaction if I have 1 2 3 and these are important if you have electrostatic forces it stops here which is why electrostatics and electrical engineering is so easy it is true that they dazzle you with all kinds of effects but they understand their theory very well because electrostatics stops here all electrical charge-charge interactions do not have a triplet interaction a third charge does not influence the first two charges except in that there are three now that is if you have 1 2 3 you have Phi 1 2 plus Phi 2 3 plus Phi 3 1 you have take all three into count but it stops here in most of chemical engineering and in chemistry we make this assumption that you can stop here this is generally negligible so from here on you say neglected for want of better tools to handle it a slight difference here this is negligible at low densities but at higher densities it is not clear that it is negligible it can make a 10% difference in properties and so on you can go on let me come back here that was shown later the camera link on is actually anticipated this result but he mainly pointed out that each of these terms this these are called virial coefficients and he said these are all only functions of temperature well I should say f of t and composition in a mixture they are not functions of pressure or density if you like f of t as quickly bracket simply means a set of mole fractions y1 y2 etc the argument for that if you take a pure substance for example if you take the limit as v goes to infinity simply goes to 1 when you take v into this is that compressibility factor take z-1 multiply by v and take the limit as v goes to infinity this will give you b right I take z-1 multiply by v the rest of them as at least a v in the denominator so it will all go to 0 so this in the limit as v goes to infinity since all properties in a pure substance are functions of only two variables we are talking one mole of the substance it can only be a function of t you start with everything as a function of t and v and because you are taking the limit as v goes to infinity the property is defined in the limit as v goes to infinity in fact that is how it is determined what you do is plot z-1 z-1 versus 1 by v versus density and take the limit as density goes to 0 then you will get b similarly you can do the same thing next step what you do is take z-1-b by v into v squared and take the limit as v goes to infinity you show that c is a function only of t so the argument the first simplification here is you have a series of coefficients of functions only of temperature they are functions of composition the function of composition again goes back to the same principle that is thermodynamics will not give you the composition dependence you have to guess the composition dependence in this particular case b mix is exactly this sum over i and j because you do not want to count it twice you have to write i less than j no not i less than j sorry I take this back here this is just i sum over i and sum over j because this goes this is a random mixture result but it is exact in the case of the virial equation this can you can only show the exactness in molecular theory simply tells you if you had a random mixture then the probability of finding a i molecule is yi the probability of finding a j molecule is yj the probability of finding an ij pair is yi yj so for example in a binary you will get where b11 b22 are pure results from pure substances in 1 2 is a hypothetical interaction hypothetical second virial coefficient that arises in a system which has only 1 2 interactions in it you cannot realize it by experiment because when you have 1 2 interactions you will have 1 1 and 2 2 with them then you have these are these are the mixing rules this is mixing rules the you have mixing rules these are exact rules you have combinatorial rules or combination rules combination rules will have to tell you what b12 is like now this could be for hard spheres this is an exact result but actually the way these values are derived is through another route through what is called corresponding states so I will come back when I discuss corresponding states I will show you how to do this in practice what you do is to say b12 is equal to this plus ?12 is just a definition in ?12 can be obtained from experimental data by fitting the results you sort of expect that the 1 2 interaction will be intermediate between 1 1 and 2 2 and since we are not very imaginative characters we either use arithmetic mean or geometric mean for temperatures if you want a TC you use an arithmetic mean and for all volumetric properties B is a volumetric property you use the arithmetic mean there are justifications for it you can show in asymptotic conditions that these rules are exact but they are not generally true so let me write that out here so you have for a virial equation you have z is equal to 1 plus b by b so let me use this equation and I am going to approximate this even further by 1 plus b p by rt instead of b I am going to write rt by p this is not a theoretically based equation this is the original virial equation this equation sometimes described as a pressure virial equation pressure explicit virial equation of state but I will use that simply because it is right now it simplifies my life in algebra so if I now calculate v from here is n times v n is the number of modes n into rt by p plus b so I want ?v by ?n i so if I differentiate this n here this n rt by p I will simply get rt by p plus b and then I have to differentiate in what is inside plus or I will write it like this as it is sorry rt by p plus partial with respect to n i of n times b so n times b is equal to because of this rule here called this equation 1 like using equation 1 this is going to be rt by p plus partial with respect to n i I will write this as n squared b by n n squared if I take n squared inside I will get n 1 squared b 1 1 plus 2 n 1 n 2 b 1 2 this is if I am doing do not mind I will change this to 1 I am going to calculate specifically v 1 bar instead of i this will be 1 so I get v 1 bar what I am interested in is v 1 bar minus rt by p I have to differentiate this so if I keep the 1 by n and then differentiate this I will get 2 n 1 b 1 1 because there is an n there it is 2 y 1 b 1 1 then next one I keep n 2 constant remember so I will get again 2 n 1 b 1 2 so plus b 1 2 then the n 2 squared does not contribute then I have to differentiate the n I will get essentially minus 1 by n squared if I get minus n by 1 squared I get back b mix or minus b mix and write out b mix because it may as well cancel terms with this b mix is y 1 squared b 1 1 plus 2 y 1 y 2 b 1 2 plus y 2 squared b 2 okay this should not to simplify this a bit what I will do is so I have I will collect terms together 2 y 1 minus y 1 squared this is 2 y 1 minus this is 1 minus y 2 the whole squared no I think I should rewrite everything in terms of y 2 2 into 1 minus y 2 minus 1 minus y 2 the whole squared times b 1 1 then I have 2 y 1 b 1 2 minus 2 y 1 b 1 2 into y 2 so it is 2 y 1 squared minus 2 y 1 squared plus 2 y 1 squared b 1 2 plus y 2 squared b 2 2 I am going to substitute for this immediately write it 2 into what cancels from here 1 will cancel okay 2 minus 1 is 1 and I have a 2 y 2 here and a 2 y 2 here minus 2 y 2 and a plus 2 y 2 that will cancel minus y 2 squared there is no 2 2 minus 1 1 minus y 2 squared is all you will get into b 1 1 plus y 2 squared b 2 2 plus I will rewrite this keep this as it is into 2 y 1 squared into or y 1 squared this is b 1 1 plus b 2 2 plus 2 delta 1 2 using equation 2 delta 1 2 is b 1 2 minus b 1 1 plus b 2 2 by 2 when you do not have data you just put delta 1 2 equal to 0 you always have to develop these engineering practice you have to have a default option have to have a quantity for which under ignorance under pressure you can either neglect or put equal to 1 because I should have kept this is y 1 itself now let me read it this I get b 1 1 I will tell you what I am really looking at if this was a pure substance this would have been v 1 v 1 minus RT by P would have been exactly b 1 1 so I must separate out b 1 1 I must separate out the pure and then look at what happens and there is a then I have b 1 1 y 1 squared minus y 2 squared this is y 1 minus y 2 into y 1 plus y 2 so y 1 minus y 2 alone I have to keep I do not like it anyway I will keep it choice and say that again here from here I am differentiating this 2 n 1 then 2 n 2 so I made a mistake yeah thanks so this should be 2 y 1 b 1 1 plus 2 y 2 b 1 2 right okay then it does make a difference finally I have got stuck anyway so thanks so 2 into 1 minus y 2 so this is minus 2 y 2 no no what I had written here is correct 1 minus y 2 the whole squared this is alright 2 y 2 into 1 minus y 1 this should have been 2 y 2 squared right I will keep it as it is right now I am simplifying this n sl so this is okay that is all I need b 1 1 minus thanks for bailing me out into b 1 1 must be a minus sign somewhere I am missing a minus sign this b 2 2 is a minus sign here is this is a minus of that so here I get minus y 2 squared into 2 b 1 2 minus b 1 1 minus b 2 2 so essentially this is equal to b 1 1 you know b 1 1 plus b 2 2 minus 2 b 1 2 is ? 1 2 so this is plus ? 1 2 into y 2 squared that is all that is really what I was looking at so you look at log p 1 the integral RT log p 1 is v 1 bar minus RT by p dp from 0 to p this b 1 1 etc all of them are functions of temperature alone so I can integrate directly with respect to pressure p 1 1 p plus ? 1 2 into y 2 squared I am sorry ? y 2 squared into p this is exactly log p 1 pure plus ? 1 2 p into y 2 squared was into RT or log p 1 so notice that p 1 is the same as p 1 pure if ? 1 2 is equal to 0 or effectively if ? v is equal to 0 if the volume change and mixing is 0 then v 1 bar is the same as small v 1 v 2 bar is small same as small v 2 this is called the Lewis and Randall rule part of education is learning jargon you are supposed to know what is the Lewis and Randall rule who is in Randall rule simply means that volume change and mixing is 0 which means instead of v 1 if you want to calculate v 1 in the mixture you need to know only v 1 pure pure component data are adequate for calculation if you simply given the virial equation and no data on b 1 2 again you do the same option anyway so as far as chemical potential of ? 1 is concerned it is ? 1 0 this is gas phase plus RT ln p y 1 into ? 1 this is a few and this is alright okay where log p 1 is simply given by this what we do is define a new quantity because you do not have to carry this ? 1 0 all the time this is a definition f 1 is called the fugacity which is why actually ? 1 was originally introduced as the fugacity coefficient fugacity is corrected pressure in some sense and if you use the same you want 0 as a base in the liquid phase then instead of equating chemical potentials you can equate fugacities and fugacities come out directly in terms of partial pressures and a correction which is calculate which can be calculated from experimental data and for which you now had default options if you do not know anything you put replace fugacities by partial pressures so let me now do the liquid side then we can do vapor liquid equilibrium because all you have to do is calculate the fugacity of a component of a liquid mixture referred to the same you want 0 so I am going to look at liquid phase the liquid phase you do not have any asymptotic behavior you cannot go to v 1 bar v 2 bar and calculate the chemical potentials so you have to use the Gibbs regime equation and you know solve the Gibbs regime equation you have to go to a model model for GXS in the way to model it in some sense in a symmetric form is using the GXS models which we have discussed in class so whenever I give you a liquid mixture I will have to tell you what the model for the GXS is automatically I am going to look at first liquid solvent solvent mixtures so for these cases you remember when we went to the draw this upwards our model is simply mu 1 mu 1 liquid is equal to mu 1 liquid pure plus RTLN ? 1 X 1 where log ? 1 satisfies the Gibbs regime equation that is GXS satisfies the Gibbs or ? 1 satisfies the Gibbs regime equation mu and ? 2 etc similarly log ? 1 satisfy the Gibbs regime equation because this is pure RTLN X 1 satisfies the Gibbs regime equation so is he satisfied but satisfying Gibbs regime equation now simply means assuming a model for GXS that goes to 0 at the right limits any model will do but what will agree with experiment will depend upon how good your physical intuition is having said that I now write mu and liquid pure this is at T and P you are looking at temperature and pressure the solution this is equal to mu and liquid pure T you have to go to a point which you understand the saturation point plus you know partial of mu with respect to P is small V this is rigorous thermodynamics so plus integral V DP from P1 saturation reason you go to P saturation is because at saturation pressure the liquid is in equilibrium with the vapor so I can now go from here I can simply replace L by V and if I know go to V then I can go back to this model I have this model for the vapor pressure vapor phase and if I go to that model I come back at the same mu and 0 which I can then cancel incidentally this is V liquid this whole thing is in the liquid region this is approximately constant so you write this is approximately mu and liquid now instead of liquid I will write it as vapor pure actually I do not have to write pure because if I write T and P saturation it has to be pure as long as I write the saturation pressure here plus V liquid into P – P saturation okay so now I can write mu liquid this quantity I can write in terms of the vapor phase model so I write this as mu10 plus RTLN P1 saturation I am not assuming ideal behavior so I have to get for the pure substance it will be mu1 is equal to mu10 plus RTLN Pf1 pure right y1 is 1 when you get Pf1 pure I write P is P1 saturation because that is the pressure at which I am evaluating it P1 is P1 saturation plus of course this term this is V1 liquid into P – P1 saturation and as soon as you get a mu10 you can define the rest as mu10 plus RTLN f1 this is f1 liquid this is f1 vapor because you have you started with mu1 liquid is equal to mu1 vapor this is the same as f1 liquid equal to f1 vapor remember you are looking at the system at constant T and P so mu10 is a function only of T so if mu this is equal to that mu10 will cancel because the same mu10 then RTLN f1 temperature is the same so LN f1 is the same as same in both phases so f1 liquid so we can now rewrite what exactly f1 liquid is f1 liquid by this comparison here is P1 P1 this side is P1 saturation P1 saturation and then there is to I forgot that ?1 x1 somewhere this is only this part sorry see mu1 liquid is equal to all this plus I must write log ?1 x1 I forgot that or this is mu1 liquid pure so I have to add a log ?1 x1 that is I wanted mu1 liquid mu1 liquid is mu1 liquid pure plus this mu1 liquid pure is this so if you like f1 liquid pure is f1 liquid is f1 liquid pure times ?1 x1 so I have f1 vapor is P y1 times P1 and f1 liquid is f1 liquid pure times ?1 x1 this is valid only for the solvent components only the solvent component I mean that component whose mole fraction can go to unity without change of phase at the same Tnp so this is your this is equal to P y1 times P1 but half the time you lose only this equation for vapor liquid equilibria this is known for a pure substance this is non-ideality correction for the pure substance this is effectively an increase in the saturation pressure when the total pressure is greater than the saturation pressure when there are two components the pressure above the liquid at equilibrium need not is not equal to the saturation pressure but it is different from the saturation pressure it is equal to it there is this difference multiplied by v1 liquid by RT will give you the increase in effective increase in saturation pressure it was first pointed out by a guy not punning for punning sake who was called pointing so it is called pointing effect it is called the pointing except he had a Y in his spelling pointing effect on vapor pressure he said most people measure vapor pressures at room temperature they measure the boiling point we are actually measuring it at atmospheric pressure not at saturation pressure because the easiest measurement is at atmospheric pressure just boil the liquid deeper thermometer measure the temperature that the pressure is one that is the normal boiling point what you get is actually an increase in the saturation pressure if there is a second component present for example if water had something dissolved in it then the actual saturation pressure that you measure would be this saturation pressure times an increase because of what is called the pointing effect. So you have a pointing effect and then you have a non-ideal you have an ideal liquid mixture and then a correction for non-ideality on the right hand side you have partial pressure correction for non-ideal so I will stop there that is the basic equation then you just have to hit that equation to death through the course so many systems so many kinds of behavior so many models for gamma 1 in so many ways of calculating phi 1.


So I know that many of you are like you have this entrepreneur spirit and you want to own something and I have that like desire as well where I want to I want to own a piece of something like it's just something to be a black female business owner. You may not be black or female but you still have the desire to own and I know that it can be a deterrent for some of you when it comes to choosing the career path and more specifically becoming a PA because there is this idea that PAs cannot own their own practice or you always have to be dependent on a physician and that is not the case. And so in today's video I'm going to be talking about can PAs own their own practice. I've already kind of sort of answered it for you but I'm going to go a little bit more in depth onto what that kind of looks like in today's video so let's get into it right now.  This is Dana. Welcome back to my channel. Okay so I have the question posted me about like can you really own your own practice as a PA and I've answered this before in a couple other videos so if you just kind of want a more full comprehensive answer and like kind of how I've gone through it before just type in like own in my search bar and then those other videos should pop up as well but in today's video I'm going to be just kind of reiterating what I've already talked about before. So short answer is yes. Yes PAs can own their own practice. Now what that looks like depends on your state and you of course but it's it's a possibility. Okay so let's just get that out of the way right here now. Now going beyond that practices that PAs own are typically small. They're typically like clinics or urgent care so something that is like a little bit smaller and more manageable obviously. If you have the money and if you have the resources in the backing behind you you can out like kind of outbreak this as big as you would like depending on your state's rules and regulations but really and truly the practices that I've seen have been kind of like single ran or they have one other partner with them and it's usually like a clinic concierge type of feel. So with that you're able to kind of really hone in and be a part of the business. Now growing a business is not easy it's very very difficult. You that's like your baby so you've to like put time money effort into making it and making it how you want it to be and so for me obviously and for some other people like that's time away from family and if you came into this profession because you want a little bit more flexibility in your time and you don't necessarily want to start a business then it's this video is not for you right but for those of you that really do want to own your own practice and and have a piece of the healthcare pie then you just really have to go to your state's website to see exactly what those regulations are. So APA which is our governing body also has kind of like a a linked page that has the various different states and where you can find the information on ownership and PA ownership and what that looks like with that what structure that looks like for your particular state or the states that you're interested in living so that would be a good first place to start when it comes to looking at how to go about owning your own practice. Now there are many practices that are like family practice or urgent care that PA's own and then specialty practice like aesthetics headache and concussion medicine weight loss clinics I've seen quite a few of all of those different structures when it comes to PA ownership obviously you know some of the more like specialties like the surgical subspecialties ownership in a practice like that is not necessarily something that a PA can do because if there needs to be like surgery done you're not directing the surgery right however depending on your state's structure if you're required to have a physician on board with you at your particular practice that you own then maybe that's something that can be worked out where they're doing the surgeries and you're doing kind of all of like you know the intake or you guys are sharing that load then you go in and you first assist on the surgeries I don't know again it all depends on your particular state and that dynamic that you have with your partner. So the the structure I would say of PA ownership can be very complex as well as billing right when it comes to insurances because you know like some insurance companies will do any and everything not to pay you right like that's kind of like that's what that's kind of like the idea that you have on insurance like you know they they're trying to provide you with this insurance if something goes wrong but at the same time it's like yo I'm looking for anyway not to have to spend this money and so when it comes to like being a PA owner that can be an obstacle that you can absolutely face so there's something that you should be mindful of when you are thinking about the structure of your practice and how you want to go about starting this particular practice you know talk to your banks and make sure that they are well aware of all that a PA can do that you are a provider that you can prescribe medication that you can do all of the things that you are trying to do in this particular clinic that you're going to be opening so that there is no issues there and then again you get with taking specific insurances that will actually like pay you for the work that you've done. When I said that the structure can be complex different states have different roles and so there are some states where PAs can only be minority owners right so maybe like 10 15 percent 20 percent ownership anything that where you're the minority like 49 to 51 percent if it's just two partners but then there are particular states that are extremely PA friendly where you can own like you know 90 percent you know 95 percent like you can have majority ownership so it really is a matter of what state you live in again like I've been saying this and the structure of how they have their ownership with respect to PAs and position setup and so short answer is yes PAs can own their own business their own practice and I mean business obviously can go into other things you know more like concierge type stuff like if you want to do infusions you know that's something that you can also do and own like full and have full ownership of that aspect of things but it all depends on what kind of practice you want and then at the same time what the state that you're living in will allow okay and I think as we become more like notable as their as more advocacy is is done for the profession some of these various different like stringent things that like prevent full ownership or prevent full independence will definitely kind of like dissipate and maybe a couple years down the line but right now here and now if you want to own your own practice it can be done you just have to go and do the research do your research do your research on how it can be done and like I said the first place I would start is going to apa.org where you can actually go to the link that they have for your particular state on what ownership structures and rules look like for you and in your state okay so hopefully this answered your question and if you have any other questions for me leave them in the comment section below don't forget to like this video and subscribe thank you guys so much for watching I will talk to you guys next time bye


I'm sick and tired of seeing black women having to be strong in movies. I'm sick and tired of seeing them having to be warriors, having to be resilient, having to be these no-limit soldiers. I'm sick of it. I want to see black women be soft.  I want to see black women in their true strength. I just got back from going to see the woman king. Shout out to Courtney Michelle. She convinced me to go see it. Like I told her, originally I was going bootleg it, but she made a good point and I went and I went to watch it. It's also partly because the bootleg was trashed. So I went to theaters and I watched the movie and I have a lot, a lot, a lot of thoughts. John Boyega, he plays the king in the movie. John Boyega is Yoruba, right? Some of you guys obviously know I'm Nigerian. Nigeria is split up into three chief ethnic groups. You have the Yorubas, you have the Auzas, and then you have the Ibo's, which I'm a part of the Ibo tribe. The Auzas are probably the largest ethnic group than the Yorubas than the Ibo's. But the Yorubas at one point were one of the most, if not the most powerful ethnic groups in West Africa. And for people who've seen the movie, they were the Aoyaw Empire. So what's ironic about the movie, you have a Yoruba dude playing the king of the Naomi, who are fighting against an empire that he in actuality is part of his lineage.  You have one group calling him racist. You have another group saying he's pandering. And then you have another group, it's not as loud in my opinion, saying, you know, that's what's up.  I believed him. I believed him. And I think it's important for black women to hear, for young black girls to hear, black men unapologetically saying it with our chest, that yeah, y'all are the standard. Now, not saying that we turn a blind eye to their bullshit, but I think it should come from a place of recognizing what they're capable of at their healthiest. So I want to see more John Boyegas. I think that's worth paying $1,000 to take pictures with, not Chris Brown, who kicks those same women out of his VIP section. I don't know how many of you guys have seen the movie, but I'd encourage you to actually go see it. Like, cinematically, it was a great movie. Obviously, it informs the Black Panther, Dora Milaje.  It was giving me Tyler Perry vibes. He says that the Dohome aren't man enough, so you had to send your women. And I posted it earlier. So I want to explain why that stuck out to me. So when I did a little bit of research into the Dohome, the idea that the Dohome Amazons, which is a name that was coined by white people to describe this female warrior group, was actually a derogatory term, right? It was to say, these women are masculine. They were a product of necessity. They were not this elite fighting force like it's being painted. They were formed because so many Dohome men were dying at war. The idea that they were front and center, and they were like, Seal Team Six, it just wasn't, it's not historically consistent. So it wasn't this idea that the women were superior to the men. No, it was, we're running out of men. Viola Davis' character said, individually, we're weak, together, we're strong. And she was saying that about the women warriors, which is the truth and historically accurate, because like I said, they weren't these elite badasses. They were known for being audacious. They were known for their courage. They were known for standing side by side with men, but they weren't known for being the best. Let's just keep it, and not to take anything away from them, but they were a result of necessity. They were kind of the equivalent of child soldiers. I don't want an environment where we have to keep needing our women to assume our rightful warrior position.  Nigeria is a large place, but in Igbo culture, we have pretty much three tiers of power, like kind of three checks and balances within a kingdom, right? So you kind of have the executive branch, which would be like the king and the elders. You then have the warrior branch, which is the youth of the community. They're the front line soldiers and the whole nine. And then you have the Umuada, and Umuada translates to first daughters. So those are the mothers of the community, right? So those are the wives of the elders. Those are the mothers of the warriors, right?   The elders met with the king, and they figured out what was going to happen if we were going to go to war with who and what needs to happen as far as the calendar and the market days and the whole nine. But if anybody in the community was trying to seek a higher position, guess one of the first groups that they had to get in good with? It's not the elders. It's not the warriors. It's the women. And why is that? In our culture, the first mothers are a very sacred position because not only do they control the whims of the elders, they also control the hearts of the warriors.  If they overstep, number one, the mothers can say, oh, okay, cool. You're not going to eat for a week. Or the mothers can galvanize and rally the youth in a way that the elders, they can't. Right? So in Africa, in African societies, there were checks and balances and not in the way that Hollywood tells us that the women were our frontline soldiers. No, that shouldn't, no, no.  So again, a lot of these things are strategic by Hollywood painting this picture that, oh, the backbone of the black community is the woman. So what's the man? And it goes back, it goes back to the quote from the movie, y'all weren't men enough so you had to send your woman. So we're reinforcing this, even in our boys, thinking that, oh, masculine women is actually the standard.  So now I want the women in my life to take care of me.  It's regressive. That's not where my strength lies. My strength lies in joining the football team and running head up with Ray Lewis. African society, the reality is we understood balance. Like there's some kingdoms that they had, you know, female oligarchs. There's some kingdoms they had females in power.  Number one, if consumer economy had a sex, it would be female. Women drive 70 to 80% of all consumer purchasing through a combination of their buying power and influence. So before this whole YouTube thing, I was, and before I worked in tech actually a while back, I was a mortgage loan originator. As such, I worked very closely with real estate agent. You have a five minute conversation with a real estate agent. They'll tell you if a husband and a wife walk into an open house, the husband, yeah, he's the one with the bag, you know, he's the one with the money. But at the end of the day, it's the wife that you need to convince. It's the wife that needs to fall in love with the kitchen and the bathrooms and see herself raising kids in this place. Largest consumer base is women. More specifically, this is just an unfortunate truth. Black women. So when we're seeing these movies pop up, Little Mermaid, Woman King, all these movies that are just sticking them into white people's wet dreams, it's to get their money. It's not actually empowering. Like I said, there's nothing empowering of watching our women suffer.  There's nothing empowering about that.  And what are the brilliance of white supremacy is, they can frame something that's actually detrimental as empowering. When my daughter's watching TV, I don't know, I want to see her, see herself in a soft character.  No, I want to see her being treated well, very well by a black man, that's what I want to see.  No, I don't want to see that. And we fall for it, we fall for it. Black female ego fuels consumerism. Black male audacity fuels revolution, right? So I want to see black men being men, and obviously they're not going to let us do it, so we have to do it for ourselves. On Osha's video, he pretty much talked about how black men don't support things financially that we want to see more of. And obviously we know that women are the largest consumer base, but we don't talk enough about how we can strategically weaponize consumerism in our favor. The Dahomey, and this is where the FBA, non-FBA piece comes in, were a big part of the slave trade, not a big part of the slave trade, but like they were participants in it. But in the movie, they were kind of framed as being anti-slavery. And the reality is a lot more complex than that. The slave trade was such an insidious enterprise. Number one, Africans didn't know what they were selling their fellow Africans into. Slavery already existed in Africa, but it was more so indentured servitude. So it was, you know, this kingdom beat this kingdom, and we took the women, and we took the children, and we took the men, and they worked for us. But as far as shadow slavery in the Americas, they had no concept of that, because they were still like rules. And what's particularly interesting is some people who sold other people into slavery were then later sold into slavery, right? So again, this idea that we put sometimes, even in FBA culture, that, oh, the people over there were participants in the slave trade over in Africa, currently, so like my ancestors, and the people over here were victims of it, it's a lot more nuanced, and it's a lot more complicated than that, right? Especially when you consider the fact that some of our African-American brothers and sisters left the United States and went back to Liberia after the Civil War and after, I think it was like the early 1900s, right? So our histories, again, like I always say, are intertwined. Why this statement he made is really interesting to me is because I talk a lot about, even during my interviews, I talk a lot about how Black men in particular in this country have been systematically and deliberately and consistently castrated. And that has been to serve the white power structure.  So there have been things done, whether rhetorically, whether literally to keep Black men down. Now, that's not to say that we're incapable of doing better for ourselves or, you know, quote, unquote, lifting ourselves up by our imaginary bootstraps. But I think the reality that we have to wrestle with is one that, like he said in the movie, your men aren't man enough so they had to send the women. A lot of the strength, a lot of the masculinity that we see from our women even today is a response to what was done to our men in an American context. And it creates this vicious cycle, right?  It just keeps going around and around in a circle until we sit back and realize what's going on, right? So when we see, for instance, mass incarceration, that's our men dying on the battlefield. When we see the crack epidemic, that's our men dying on the battlefield. When we see a co-intel pro, when we see homosexuality in the LGBTQ agenda, that is literally like the reason the Homie Amazons were created in the first place because the men had been literally killed. Now, in an American context, it's more of a covert, more of a subtle thing. But I think that was a phenomenal point. And to go back to the solution as Black men, we should funnel our interests, our attention, our resources behind what we want to see more of as opposed to simply, and this goes to my critique of some aspects of the manuscript.  Like at some point, we have to move past that. At some point, we have to become solution-oriented, right? God be my witness, been trying my best to articulate to the women that, yo, all these things that you think about men, it's strategic, like you're supposed to think that. And even, you know, some of the critiques about this movie, like it's going to make women continue to think that they are superior to Black men. All that is strategic. But hey, at the end of the day, if our women are going to go out there and spend their money, obviously they want to see themselves in a limelight. Obviously they want to see themselves with power, whether that's overt power, because that's the easiest power to recognize and understand. You know, so for me, I'm an aspiring documentary filmmaker. Like that's what I want to be able to do full-time. And from that, I want to branch off into even dramatizing certain aspects of our interpersonal relationships as Black people. But I can't do it by myself. If you study any research that's been done about the correlation between things people want to see politically and laws that are passed or bills that are passed, there's really no correlation. Powers to be bought. Power, powers to be taken. It's not to be complained about. It's not to be lobbied for. And I think that's where we, and when I say we, I'm not just talking about Black men as a community, that's where we drop the ball. We spend entirely too much time talking about what should be as opposed to supporting what is going to be. If that means, you know, Dr. Tia San Johnson, you like the work that he's doing with the Onyx Report. If that means O'Shea Duke-Jackson, you like the work he's doing with a Black male perspective on gossip news and celebrity news. If you like the work I'm doing here, it means supporting. So if we want to truly see change, if we truly want to see the power dynamic switch, I think the conversation about, for instance, one of the first scenes in the movie was Black women killing Black men. Yeah, we can have that conversation. But I think the next conversation should be, why weren't we at Nate Parker's movie when he was killing white people? Birth of a Nation, why weren't we at his movie? American Skin, why weren't we at his movie?  Why weren't, why didn't we support that? Although we are being pushed this idea that female power is masculine and it should be overt. Nah, female power is covert. Female power is seduction. It's persuasion. It's influence, right? And unfortunately our women have had to step into the role of masculine energy and they have wholesale kind of lost their ability to influence. You read the book, 48 Laws of Power, it talks about the most powerful person on the kingdom or in the kingdom is not the man on the throne. It's the shadowy figure behind the man on the throne because not only does he have all the influence of the throne, he's also insulated by the throne because if there's an assassination attempt, somebody's coming, you know, for the head honcho, they don't know that Gepetto has been pulling the strings all along. No, they're going to take out the king. The Lila took down Samson in the Bible. Female power is supposed to be covert. It's supposed to be subtle. It's a, we're talking about soft growth error. It's supposed to be soft. Now here's what's interesting about softness that I think we fail to understand sometimes. When you drop something that's hard, when you drop something that's rigid, it cracks, it chips, but when you drop something that's soft, it bounces.  We got to be frontline soldiers, literally and figuratively. So there is utility to our stoicism. There's a utility to our brash and abrasiveness, right? And female energy is not built to be that. It's not built to be the same. It's built to be soft and not soft in a easily manipulated or a yes man type of way. It's soft in a way that is flexible, fluid, right? And unfortunately, like I said, our women have had to assume a ministry that is not theirs. And in my opinion, they're not good at because when you look at the numbers about, you know, anti-depressants, when you look at the numbers about high blood pressure, this system of the goddess culture is killing our women. Now, again, that's not to let them off the hook for the decisions that they make in mating or the decisions that they make in planning out their future. But at the end of the day, like as black men, we got to get back on that battlefield too. And I think that also starts with what, you know, John Boyega did in saying that, you know, black women are the standard.  He said that they're just gorgeous. They're fine. They're sexy. And even for my passport, bros, you know, like I said before, if y'all are going and finding black women internationally, I don't have, I'm an international black man. I can't have a problem with that. There was a conflict within the kingdom between Viola's character who represented more so a masculine woman and one of the Queens who represented more so a feminine woman, right? Like the king had a preference for the masculine woman and kind of, you know, through the feminine woman to the side. And I thought that was interesting. They kind of show the dynamics that we talked about between like the pygmies and everybody who hates them. At the end, the king gave a speech and it was pretty much, I think he was speaking through the movie, but he was pretty much saying like we can't, we can no longer allow ourselves to be the authors of our own dysfunction. Like he was saying from the perspective of we can't continue to participate in the slave trade, but you could bring that modern day and like, yeah, we can no longer be making all this oppression porn for the ops from the world star hip hop to the, you know what I'm saying, the shade rooms, things like that. Like we are literally handing over every reason why we should be oppressed.  Every reason why we're less than human. Now, obviously white people's agenda is clear. They're going to keep propping up LGBTQ feminism and everything else that was used strategically to infiltrate the civil rights movement. They're going to keep doing that. That makes sense. That makes business sense, right? And that's, I think that's where I'm at. Like even when I talk about white supremacy, I don't care as much about whether or not white people like us. It's never where I've been. I care about why we continue to participate in the dysfunction that lines their pockets. Because I don't, again, the art of war, I don't blame them. They need to exploit us to survive.