a presentation of TFNN. The Tom O'Brien Show is produced every business day. Tom takes your phone calls toll-free at 1-877-927-6648 internationally at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Hey, Robert, how you doing, man? Yes, and thank you for taking my call. I wanted to let you know that I've been a subscriber for a couple of years, just different members of your team. And I really enjoy it. But really, the reason I'm calling it is to express my sincerest gratitude for you for providing that information yesterday on the small business grants. I'm a small business owner, primary bread winner for my family. And if I can get that money, it's going to really mean a lot to my family. So thank you for taking the time to do that. No, listen, man, we appreciate you growling and prowling with us now. Tom O'Brien. Welcome, folks. This is Tom O'Brien of TFNN. We got five days a week. We go seven hours a day. We go 24 hours a day on the internet at TFNN.com. Always remember, folks, whatever you think about, you bring about whatever you focus on grows. Hope everyone's having a great day, safe day. Let's make it a great night, folks. Cultivate wisdom. You don't need to accumulate knowledge to become wise. Anyone can become wise. When you become wise, you respect your body, you respect your mind, and you respect your soul. When you become wise, your life is controlled by your heart, not your head. Make it wise! Let's take a look at it out here. We have the Dow Industries up six. NASDAQ is up 95. S&P is up 12. Gold contract at $33.50, trading $17.92 an ounce. You got Silver up 56 cents, $23.07 an ounce. Light Sweet Crude, flat, $80.48, a barrel, notes, and bonds. The 10-year-up one ticks, trading $13106, the 30-year-up a full point, at $159.18, $437 ticks, trading out at $9407, Euro 115. The yen is out here at $113.34, and the British pound is at $136 to $1 at U.S. Dollar. iPhone number's<PHONE_NUMBER>, give us a call, folks. Want to know what's going on in your world, and the world of the S&Ps, let's take a look at them. What do you have out here? Well, you get a sideways market, you have no juice in the market. Bottom line, we're up 125 in the spy. That's just drifting lower, that's the real bottom line. My take here is that you're gonna continue to drift lower. I expect we're gonna get a little bit lower as we come into the close, nothing heavy, but I don't expect we're gonna be, also, the spy's up 137 right now. I suspect it's gonna be back down, back down. Okay, so let me just go look at this baby and see how it's set up right now. Okay, so you got a little spike, and we'll see whether it's gonna, yeah, that could, well, that could test a high intraday. That's, because you get the spike high when the fed minutes come out. We'll see how that baby shakes out, but my take is that you still have a very weak market, you're in a correction, and it's drifting. That's the bottom line. The cues, the cues are up $2.59 straight into $3.59. 75, and what's amazing, and this is, this is, this is amazing. Apple, folks, okay? Apple is gonna be shot 10 million phones, and the bottom line is that the stock's only down 90 cents. You trade 60 million shares. I wouldn't be buying Apple here. You know, my take is that Apple wants to go lower, but, you know, even when this come across the small, and I say, you know what, the deviants in this is gonna be that Apple's not gonna sell all the way down, and it didn't. And, you know, that being said, bottom line is that once you go back inside 145, that's saying that Apple can get down into this 116 area. So we'll see how this baby shakes out. But I suspect we're building cars for lower price. Gold, gold contract, you know, we were talking about gold. Gold was a complex ABC structure in the way up. You had $17.95 was your price projection. We hit $17.97. We'll go over this baby, and you'll see how these babies shake out. So what you had is this, is that what we had done last Friday is that you got over the high of the B point. You had the volume behind the move, the volume there was 240,000 contracts. You had taken out the B point, which had 160,000 contracts, but yet you totally gave it up on price. When you do that, they turn into complex ABC structures. In this particular case we had, well, it worked out right, okay? You pull back on Monday with 115,000 contracts. Yesterday you stopped moving higher again with 160. Today it just blew everything away. 285,000 contracts. Now what we have now is this. So the gold contract now, you know, might take anyway, if you have the gold reports that we were going to 1839, the top of that consolidation. Bottom line, you're breaking it now, which is a beautiful thing. It's about time we did it, but this is another break with conviction. That saying that the gold market now is making its way up until the 1922 area, which was the high of June of 2021. We got to take a look at the silver market out here we'd have with the silver market. That finally caught a bid. That's up 55 cents out here. And silver needs a lot more work. That's the real bottom line. Same setup though. This is a complex ABC structure up. Silver did the exact same thing. And, you know, silver had got up to the price point of 2322, gave it up, gave it up on price. Did 69,000 contracts. You needed more than 35 bottom line. We have another 67,000 contracts out here. The ABC structure on silver folks is 2395, but I expect we're going to see this get up to that 2494 area. What you do have with a lot of these gold equities and silver equities, you got an ABC structures on the way up. We will find out, I expect we're going to have an ABC structure also inside of the XAU as well as the HUI. I won't get these volumes until tonight at eight o'clock, but you can see we needed volume more than 22 million shares taking out the B point of the XAU, which is 126.63. Well, yesterday we had 26 million and was going into 22. We'll get a lot more volume today. So this is an ABC structure on the way up in the XAU. Your B point out here is like, I'm just going to ballpark. Well, 126.63 and 116. So it's a 10.80 which gets you a 132 and right now you're at 129. We go look at the gold bugs index. We take a look at the gold bugs index. What we have with the gold bugs index is that that's up $8.84. You're trading out here at 253, volumize out here. Yesterday we did 17 million. The B point has 17. We're going to get more than that today. So more than like this is going to be an ABC up all. So 246. Well, this is a nice one. You get 36. You get 42. That'll give you 40, about 282. There are 253. Swing point is 281. That's where we're going, man. You're going to the swing point up here. Good old King dollar. Let's go, well actually, let's go look at the note and bond market. So you look at the note and bond market. We take a look at the 10-year first. You're going to see the 10-year has done 2.1 million contracts. Now that's really good contract volume. It needed to basically get off these lows. You have the, I believe, what also happened is that, let's see if we get, here it is. Check this out, folks. This is heavy. So primary deals were awarded a record low share of Wednesday's 24 billion and 30-year bond sales for the second straight month. The group of 24 firms was awarded 12.3 of the auction. Ellipson, September's 13.1. Now, what this means, folks, again, is this. These are the primary dealers which normally get a bulk of the 30-year bond. But you know what's going on? When you get Treasury Direct, there's plenty of other people that are buying bonds. Notes and bonds, folks, are still out here. They still want higher price, lower yield. Stay right there, folks. Come right back. Are you looking for a way to consistently add winning trades to your portfolio? Tom O'Brien is here to help. Tom O'Brien has been successfully trading markets for over 30 years. A frequent contributor to TD Ameritrade Network and CNBC, Tom O'Brien founded TFNN over 20 years ago to help educate investors just like you. Tom's Daily Market Newsletter, Market Insights, is published every morning when the market's open to give you the competitive informational edge you need to succeed. These newsletters are packed full of Tom's advanced technical analysis and are geared to deliver comprehensive strategies for a successful portfolio. Get Tom O'Brien's newsletter, Market Insights today and try all of our products and newsletters 30 days risk-free with our money-back guarantee at TFNN.com, TFNN, Educating Investors. What's separating you from the most successful men and women on Wall Street? That's right, information. Having all the information gives us the perspective we need to place the right trades at the right time. The TAS Profile Scanner is the premier market-profile-based scanner. Powered by its acclaimed TAS proprietary algorithms, this feature-rich scanner instantly filters over 2,500-plus global financial markets such as stocks, ETFs, commodities, futures, and forex. This powerful suite of tools leverages instant trade filtering and strategy formulation to show you emerging trades before they happen.  Level the playing field with the TAS Profile Scanner which you can find under the services tab at TFNN.com. Sign up today. Sharpening your skills as an investor is like getting better at playing a musical instrument. You have to practice, sure, but you also need excellent instruction from experts. At TFNN, you'll get advice and guidance from the authority and technical market analysis and it's not just dry, tedious text either. TFNN airs live financial content streamed live on TFNN.com and TFNN's YouTube channel with Tiger TV, live every market day from 8.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Eastern. For free, each host is an experienced trader and gives their take on the market while taking calls and questions live from around the world. From the moment the market opens until the closing bell sounds, Tiger TV has eight different shows with expert hosts to help you make the right moves with your money. Watch online at TFNN.com or on TFNN's YouTube channel and become the investor you were born to be, TFNN. Educating investors. Call now. Toll free at 1-877-927-6648 internationally at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Welcome back, folks, down. Down investors right now have six. You get the NASDAQ up 90, S&Ps up 11 and a half. We had the Fed minutes come out, folks, from the September 21st, 22nd Federal Reserve meeting and inside of those meetings, the bottom line is that they basically noted that the minutes make clear that the Fed will announce tapering at its next meeting, which is November 7th, 2020. At its next meeting, which is November 2nd and 3rd, the bottom line is that they're going to be looking for, I believe it's $15 billion out here. Officials discussed a tapering path. The path featured month reductions in the pace of asset purchases by $10 billion in the case of treasuries and $5 billion in the case of agency-backed, mortgage-backed security. So it's going to be $15 billion. They'll reduce when they start this baby off. When I just went through the 30-year bond, you can see that there are, so picture this, on the 30-year bond today in the auction, folks, okay? Only 12% of the 24 dealers got the 30-year bond. That means that there's that many other players in the marketplace, and these would be trust funds, hedge funds, big companies, okay? That bottom line bought the bonds, which, let me tell you something, man, that's unusual, okay? The bottom line is it broke last month that these notes and bonds, the amount of demand versus the amount of supply is huge. And I know each one of us can say, that doesn't make any sense, okay? Because the bottom line is that you're not getting a lot of money from, well, it totally makes sense when you have liabilities that are stretched out for 30 years.  Let's see what's going on right now. So right now, let me put it up on this one, actually, so you can see this. Okay, so we'll get into the 30-year, yeah, you're gonna get your 2%. My God. Imagine giving someone money for 30 years for 2%, but bottom line is that that's how that shakes out, meaning that you have a liability on one side of the sheet and the asset on the other. And in this particular case, they're lining up the assets in the bond market. One of the tie you just sent this over, this is pretty cool, folks, okay? Thanks, Mr. G. And what it is, is that the Kelly Blue Book, year over year, paid for a new vehicle is up 12.1%. We at Inflation folks is out here in spades. I mean beyond belief. And the acceleration has already happened. And what I mean by that is this, is that we've been going along forever at the same pace, right? My take is that we've already gone up like 20, 25% on a lot of stuff. And yeah, maybe it was straight now that, you know, we need to take everything into consideration, four, five, 6%, which is a monster, by the way, okay? But the bottom line, we're not going back down. It's not just, I don't see it in the cards. I just don't see it in the cards at all. And this is a worldwide phenomena. This is not a United States phenomena. It's a worldwide phenomena, okay? Which basically sets up higher prices across the world and will be at a higher level. That's kind of how the whole thing shakes out. J.P. Morgan came out with the numbers today and the numbers look good on the top, but the bottom line is that what that was all about was the aspect that they basically took, numbers out of the reserves that they had and they actually came in. If you take that number out and you take the, let's say, okay, deal. So it says J.P. Morgan deal makers posted their best quarter yet. Fees from advising on deals almost tripled in the quarter, crushing analysts estimates and helping to push the firm's net income to 11.7 billion. The bottom line is that they're selling the stock off. You're down $4.25. You're down with volume, by the way. And we take a look at this and put this on a weekly basis. What you're gonna see now is this. And this is where it's crucially really understand with volume off the high. Well, last time that J.P. Morgan came down on the 11th and 12th through June, you had volume off the high. Volume off the high is always problematic. What we had done is that we went back up, we tested those highs with tremendously lighter volume in the weekly. You're gonna have volume off the high once again. J.P. Morgan's on its way down at 145 and right now you're at 161. What's gonna get intriguing is Morgan Stanley is coming out with numbers tomorrow morning. I don't think they're gonna be any better. Their banks are different, but the bottom line folks is that J.P. Morgan's selling off four bucks, guess what, man. Morgan Stanley, right now from three weeks ago, you got a high volume low at 96. That's hanging out there. Let's put this on a three-year weekly and just see what we have. So you get a high with, look at this. The high was generated with 33 million. You come off that high with 45 million and 54. This thing's going lower, man. They're going lower. And Morgan Stanley's case, 81 is game and right now you're at 98. So I suspect that what you're gonna see here is that you're gonna get more blowback on the lower end. Some of the higher volume equities out here today. Apple's up there. That's down 90 cents. You got Advanced Micro is up 370. You got AMC up 71. Company's still losing money, hand over fist and straight into $37. You're gonna love these times. American Airlines off 60 cents. You got Affirm Holdings up $5. That's, Affirm's not been on a run. That's one of the years you'll buy now, pay later. And I believe someone's buying them, I think. I think that's how it is. So Affirm Holdings, just pull this up. Well, maybe not. Anyway, they fundamentally, let's see what they do. Fundamentally, they lose money, man.  Okay, so they plan on taking the 250 million in this quarter and losing 40 cents. Unreal. Oh, man. You're a public company. You lose money, and yet they bid you up, man. You gotta love just the whole aspect of how it works, man. I mean, because it's absolutely amazing. There's no doubt about it. Now, let's go take a look at Anico Eagle for a lot of our tigers, because a lot of them own Anico Eagle as well as Kirkland Lake, because Anico Eagle's buying Kirkland Lake, and you're all gonna be happy out here today too, because the bottom line is that now, 8 a.m. is an ABC structure on the way up. Your B point on this is 55, 28. Your A point is 49, 20, so you get a nice one. You get six points, which is gonna bring you up to the $60 price point. Right now, you're 56, 97. And as that goes higher, you're gonna see Kirkland Lake continue to go higher, because Kirkland Lake, this equity in the last two weeks just went from $39 to $45. This will continue higher because the ratio, I believe, is 0.7 of 8 a.m. equals Kirkland Lake. That's what they're paying for it. As 8 a.m. continues higher, that's what you're gonna get. We look at the GDX. We take a look at the GDX out here.  There you go. Taking the B point out with volume today. The B point's 31, 56. Your A's 28, so you get, this is 28 or 26. 28. Okay, so you got bottom line 28, 83. Okay, so you got about two and a half bucks, which is gonna get you about 33. Right now, you're at 32, 13. Stay right there, folks, coming right back. Our phone number's<PHONE_NUMBER>. Dow, Dow Industries right now, down to 18, NASDAQ is up 84, S&P's up eight and a half, we'll come right back. You having fun trading the markets, but having trouble finding like-minded individuals to discuss your trading and investment ideas with? Become an Apex creditor in the trading markets and join the Tiger's Den Trading Room only at tfnn.com. The Tiger's Den is an exclusive trading room where successful traders from around the world come to exchange trades and ideas. Join the den and surround yourself with the sharpest minds in the trading world. Subscribers to the Tiger's Den are also the first to have their questions answered live on air and can privately chat with our TFNN hosts live during their shows. Interact with other Tigers and Tigers' as they share trading ideas, news analysis, and discuss the market action all trading day. Subscribe to the Tiger's Den risk-free with our 30-day money back guarantee and become part of the TFNN trading community. TFNN, educating investors. You could be making money off the stock market and if you're already making money off the stock market, you could be making a lot more. Check out TFNN and Tiger TV and get expert investing advice to give you the power to control your financial future. Go to tfnn.com and find the newsletter for you. Whether you're into trading gold, metals, futures, currencies, or options, you'll get advice and analysis to help you seriously get ahead. TFNN also features trading services with a 30-day money back guarantee for new subscribers, as well as TFNN's Tiger Den trading room, trading software, and educational webinars for all trading levels. And make sure you check out Tiger TV for free on tfnn.com or TFNN's YouTube channel for live financial content from 8.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Eastern on market days.  TFNN, educating investors. TFNN is excited about our new software charting program, The Art of Timing the Trade Charts. In collaboration with Tom O'Brien and using his best-selling book, The Art of Timing the Trade, Your Ultimate Trading Mastery System, David White has programmed an outstanding piece of software that will complement any trader's methodology. Using this first-of-it-kind program, The Art of Timing the Trade Charts allows you to scan thousands of stocks for Fibonacci formation setups, including Gartly's, ABC's, Butterflies, and much more. The Art of Timing the Trade Charts is designed to help you when scouring the markets for stocks just beginning to form the trading patterns that many investors spend days, weeks, or even months searching to find. And right now, we're offering licenses available at only $79 a month. We are so confident that you're gonna love this new charting software that will even give you a 30-day unconditional money-back guarantee. Don't miss out on this incredible new piece of software. Get your copy of The Art of Timing the Trade Charts today by visiting tfnn.com. This segment is brought to you by Think or Swim. For more information, just click the Think or Swim banner on the front page of tfnn.com.  Let's go and take a look at this copper contract. We got some good action on here. So, copper's up 17 pennies and folks, that is like a monster mover and beyond belief. You got 102,000 contracts. This is good.  Your swing had 85,000 contracts. That sets up. So the top there is 447. The bottom is nice. You get 50 cents. That's saying five bucks is coming at us. Okay, so now let me put this on HG1. HG1 folks is a continuous contract because I wanna see where five bucks was the last time that we were up here. So I'll put this on about a 15 year monthly. Look at that, man. That means we're gonna break highs. Okay, this is gonna be cool. Let's bring this back even further. Okay, so I'm bringing it back 30 years right now. This is an indication of where we are in the pricing model. Yeah, this thing, okay. So the all time high is 489.85. That's gonna be in a continuous contract. So what happens is that these contracts expire over three months, folks. Bottom line, this ABC structure brings you to five bucks. We're going higher, man.  To me, everything's going higher. That's how this thing is shaking up. What we don't know yet, and this is what's gonna be kind of cool actually, is understanding the move that we had in the marketplace. Okay, it was the marketplace, the first place that prices got bit up higher because of inflation. Because you get two different things that end up happening here. Now this is where it's gonna be really cool. This is what's gonna be really cool in the context of how we all kind of move through this market. And what it is is this, is that inflation in general basically destroys wealth. That's the first part. Second part goes like this, is that equity-wise, what you have is that at the beginning, it very well could have pushed these prices up. It had pulled them back a little, but everything is gonna have higher price, including the market. That's how this works. It's surprising that we still, we got a good bid on gold today, and I think gold's going higher, but we still haven't got the type of juice that if the market is looking at inflation, that we would get in gold. And I don't buy the whole deal that, people are buying Bitcoin and they'd be buying gold. I think it's a whole different marketplace, and that's just my take on it.  Oil, let's go into the oil market and take a look at oil because oil, no doubt, has already gone. Oil looks to me like it's gonna go to 100 bucks. Right now, we're trading at 80. Last, we get 440,000 contracts. This has been a one-way move also, man. I mean, these one-way moves, when we end up getting a retracement in some of these commodities, yeah, I have the charts in the den. I'm not quite sure what's going on with the den. I'm sorry about this, folks. I got them in, and we've been having problems with the tiger's den, there's no doubt. Bottom line, inside of the oil market, this is an ABC structure on the way up, too. And the 70, 79, that's 70, that's 10 bucks. That gets you to 84. Yeah, we'll see whether, you know, we'll make it to 100, but that's the way this seems to be shaking out right now. That's what I'm looking at. We're gonna take, let's go take a look at a couple of the big dogs out there. We'll start with Amazon, Amazon right now trading up 37. And Amazon's a great one, folks, to keep your eye on because it doesn't look to me like Amazon's done consolidating yet. You know, the bottom line is that this has a high volume low at the 27, 71, 28, 71. And I think it's gonna basically test that. And what normally happens is this, is that that'll be weakness inside the marketplace that as that comes down, you know, you're coming into the season where, of course, you get Christmas happening. It's a big season for all these retailers. That being said, all these retailers are also going to basically have expenses that are huge. And the expenses, of course, are gonna be transportation. You know, you start reading the stories now that you have many of these companies, they're hiring their own chips and they're smaller ships. These smaller ships carry 1,000 containers, folks. And what happens with 1,000 containers is that these containers can go to smaller ports. That's what ends up happening. That being said, I expect the next stories that we're gonna start hearing is that Costco's of the world, the Amazons, the Walmots. Okay, Walmots has been hiring their own chips for a long time. I believe that the ship captains went on strike, or the stevedores went on strike in 2012. And when they went on strike in 2012, that's when Walmots decided to start getting into leasing some of their own chips. So they've been doing it for a long period of time. That being said, what I expect we'll see next is this.  That's the real bottom line. And the bottlenecks are everywhere. The bottlenecks coming into China, coming out of China, coming into our own ports, going out of our own ports, and this has to do with help, once again, folks. So the bottom line, you know, truckers, they need so many truckers, it's unbelievable. And this is what ends up happening. So check this out in the trucking business. So this is pretty heavy. Even though POT is legal in a lot of states, what does happen is that if many of these trucking companies, if you smoke POT, the bottom line is that you can't get a big job. Well, they got a problem with that, man. That's the bottom line, because so many people who smoke in POT, that they have to work for different trucking companies. And, you know, we'll see if that ends up changing. Right now, that's kind of how it shakes out. So, you know, this whole help situation is something else. Let's go take a look at Royal Gold. Royal Gold, as well as Franklin, Nevada. Bottom line, have had a hard time coming off the lows. I don't like what's happening with Royal right now. It's up 77 cents, but, you know, this didn't even hold price out here today. $98.30, bottom line, we are at 96.57 right now. Franco-Nevada, FNV. Now, Franco-Nevada is stronger than Royal. Okay, that's good. Franco-Nevada caught a bid up about 95. Not an ABC up, though, but close. Let's see, 20 minutes left. No, I'm not gonna be able to do it at 20 minutes left. Bottom line is that you need 687,000 contracts, and right now, it's not even close to that. Stay right there, folks. Our next guest, it's gonna be pretty cool, man. Our next guest is George Siegel, though he has just come out with a documentary. He's winning a huge amount of awards also. The documentary is called The Last House Standing, and we are gonna be talking about, he explores the tragedies in many of the, in our countries, as they contend with national disasters and the structural integrity of houses along the coast. Stay right there, folks. Come right back. Are you in the market for buying or selling real estate in the Bay Area, including the surrounding St. Petersburg, Tampa, and Clearwater Markets? Tiger Real Estate, LLC, is a firm that has extensive experience in the Tampa Bay Area. Whether you're looking to sell your current property for maximum value, or you're in the market for a second home or investment property, Tiger Realty has the experience across all areas of real estate in the Tampa Bay Area to help buyers and sellers make the most informed decisions across all price levels. From the price you should be paying per square foot in certain up and coming areas to the type of cash flow investment properties are capable of creating, Tiger Real Estate can help you make the best decision when it comes to all areas of the market. Before you make one of the biggest decisions of your financial future, call Tiger Real Estate, LLC today at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email us at tiger at TFNN.com. That's<PHONE_NUMBER>. Call us today. The technology around us is changing every day. With so much happening, it can seem impossible to keep up with all the information. David White's investment newsletter, the Technology Insider, is designed to give you all the information you need to understand the technology that shapes today's markets and tomorrow's future. David White has made his living staying on the cutting edge of technology. This weekly newsletter will give you specific recommendations for valued tech stocks, as well as entry prices, target prices, and stops to set for each trade. Dave delivers his weekly newsletters every Friday with updates throughout the week. You can get the Technology Insider at TFNN.com for only $37.50. Sign up for David's newsletter, the Technology Insider, and get an inside look at everything the technology sector has to offer. Try it risk-free today with our 30-day money-back guarantee. TFNN, educating investors. Biotech is booming, but for how long? Whether you think the Biotech bull has room to run or has run its course, trade LABU or LABD, Directions Daily S&P Biotech three times bull and bear ETFs. Visit DirectionInvestments.com slash Biotech today. An investor should consider the investment objectives, risks, charges, and expenses of the Direction Chairs carefully before investing. The Prospectus and Summary Prospectus contain this and other information about Direction Chairs. To obtain a Prospectus or Summary Prospectus, please contact Direction Chairs at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Prospectus or Summary Prospectus should be read carefully before investing. An investment in the funds is subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal. The funds are designed to be utilized only by sophisticated investors such as traders and active investors. Distributor, Four-Side Fund Services, LLC. Toll-free at 1-877-927-6648. Internationally at<PHONE_NUMBER>. I'm O'Brien. Welcome back, folks, Dow. Dow's down nine, Nasdaq is up 92, S&Ps are up 10 and a half. I guess today, folks, is George Segal. George is a former weatherman and a reporter turned filmmaker known for his documentary of The Last House Standing. Oh, man, I'm telling you. The Last House Standing explores the tragedies many in our country contend within the face of natural disasters with regard to flooding, structural integrity, and questions, and he questions why better construction practices aren't employed to prevent such destruction from occurring. George is won many awards, including the Miami Film Independent Film Festival, the website, folks, of which I have up, is TheLastHouseStanding.org. George, welcome to TFNN. Hey, thanks for having me on. I appreciate it. This is a subject that all of us, whether they were in Florida, whether in Massachusetts, whether in California, or whether, I guess, The Last Storm, George, in the bottom line comes up in Florida and basically you think Louisiana's gonna get killed and New Jersey and New York get killed, right? Yeah, and unfortunately what they saw there is people in the Northeast watch the storm and they go, ah, the Gulf Coast is getting pounded again and then it ends up in their backyard and a lot of the areas that flooded up there never have flooded before.  It certainly was. That last one was something else. So this is really cool, man. First, tell me, how did you get involved in this? How did you get to this point? Well, when I was in the news business, I used to have to cover these stories, either forecasting them as a weather forecaster, or going out as a reporter, going out to the scene after a disaster and meeting people that had lost everything in floods or in tornadoes and I just thought it was so sad when I got out into the real world away from TV news, I wanted to make a film about it. And when Hurricane Michael happened in 2018, that became the centerpiece for the film because that truly was in that area, the last house standing, and it's a metaphor for what you really wanna strive for is having a house that actually has a chance to survive a disaster. If you notice, most of the houses around our area, if they're built to code, that's not gonna withstand a category four or five hurricane. It's just gonna maybe meet the code in your area but it's not enough. It's not, and with George is talking about folks and I think many of us, okay, is that that last house standing, I remember that picture so well, George, okay, that is just the one we're talking about where the two guys had built the house that to withstand like 200 miles an hour, I think, right? And it was the only house standing? Yeah, I mean, they were smart guys and they knew that, okay, let's not build to code, let's build to survive the worst thing that could happen here. Yes. And they got hit by the worst thing that could happen there and they survived. The people that had the older homes or the homes that were at lower elevation that didn't go as far into the sand as his house, those houses didn't make it. Right. So what type, and I understand you're doing this so people can get educated and bottom line, everyone wants a house and wants a good house, right? So what, we know that people build with stick, that people build with block, what do you think can be done in order to basically be the last house standing, that you and me and the audience will have that house? Well, a lot more than is being done right now because we still see a lot of houses going up that might have block on the first floor, wood on the second floor. Yes. And in Tampa, in St. Pete, through Pinellas County, all those areas, those, there's a lot of older homes that aren't built to withstand anything that would be a major disaster. Right. So you really have to understand what the risk is, specifically to where you are and what you wanna do to address it. Unfortunately, I don't think many people take it seriously. Most of us think it's not gonna happen to us. You know, and if it does, we'll be fine. And that's the whole point of the last house standing film is you meet so many people that lost everything from various disasters and nobody really calculates that cost of what it's cost right after the disaster to get food and get your house fixed. Maybe you have to relocate, maybe you lose your job, you have kids, you have to get them around places, you don't have transportation. I mean, there's so many things that you can't even put a price on that you really have to understand the risks. And when I moved to Tampa, the one thing I learned is most people don't understand the risk and most people don't take it that seriously. If they do, they're an outlier but most people don't have generators. Most people don't really know how safe their house is. I would venture to say they know the safety features of their car better than the safety features of their house. And I think that's pretty sad. Yeah, there's no doubt about that. And you know, which I just saying folks, I'm sure this is right across the country, but in our area here, we have a lot of building that's going on.  I build a lot of houses and I, and you'd love my houses, man. They're all blocked. They're all blocked. They're, well, they're not to 160 miles an hour, but they're 140, but they are all blocked. I mean, I can show you, I just came from three of them. It just, it was wild having you on because I build a block on the bottom floor and on the top floor and ripping down the, you know, the roofs, the whole, the whole ball of wax. And it blows my mind when you see apartment buildings, there are so many apartment buildings across the country right now that are all stick, okay? Cause the new deal is that you can put sticks together and you know, they, they are some of them are strong steel, but the bottom line is that a good hurricane is going to take them out. So like as to the aspect of each city, what do you think?  I know what we should do, but the bottom line is it's really hard to turn around and change a code, right? That, you know, that you was saying, okay, forget the sticks, man, because you know what blows my mind, George, and folks, it's not that much more expensive. Like I build a 1923 front house, a 441 back house with two-car garage. It's all blocked. Yeah, maybe a cost me like 25 grand, but people will pay for it. Do you know what I'm saying? That's not, and I show them the difference. I show them pictures of, okay, man, what's under that stucco is either stick or block. Do you know what I'm saying? But I feel that as long as you show them and educate them, people will pay for that. You know what, a lot of builders don't do that.  Right. And most people, if you told them it was 25 grand more to have concrete on the second floor, they probably would think, no, I wanna go on a boat. I wanna have a trip. I wanna do all these things. And they miscalculate the importance of having those things. And sure, you could build a strong house out of wood.  And most people, just after the fact, it's too late, right? You have one chance to get it right. And we don't know. We don't understand truly what we're living in until there's a disaster. And then everybody looks around, who do I blame? How did this happen? Yeah. Well, we need to demand more. You need to, don't buy a house that's not built well.  And ultimately, I think the entire Gulf Coast should be building to the standards they do in South Florida, which is to, I believe it's a hundred and 70 miles now. Yeah, it's 160, 170, exactly. It's really cool, folks. Florida has a lot of different things that you might like or not like, but the codes in South Florida are phenomenal. They're awesome. I mean, because they've got hit so much. There's no doubt about it. You know it's really cool that I love you doing.  You'd think they would think more about it. But what I've found in life, not because I'm in the financial business too, it blows my mind that people save all their money then they just give it to a financial advisor. It's like, hold it. You just worked it like, and it's almost like that in the housing business. You know what I mean? You work for your house while you shouldn't understand what's in it, right? Well, the way they rate houses, prisons are actually safer than houses. My God. Listen, we gotta have you on again, man. I really appreciate the education. We have a great one, safe one. We look forward to having you on again, George. Thank you, lasthousestanding.org. That's right, lasthousestanding.org, folks. Thanks so much, man. Have a great one, have a safe one. Stay right there, folks, to come right back. Sharpening your skills as an investor is like getting better at playing a musical instrument. You have to practice, sure, but you also need excellent instruction from experts. At TFNN, you'll get advice and guidance from the authority and technical market analysis, and it's not just dry, tedious text either. TFNN airs live financial content streamed live on TFNN.com and TFNN's YouTube channel with Tiger TV, live every market day from 8.30 a.m. to 4.00 p.m. Eastern for free. Each host is an experienced trader and gives their take on the market while taking calls and questions live from around the world. From the moment the market opens until the closing bell sounds, Tiger TV has eight different shows with expert hosts to help you make the right moves with your money. Watch online at TFNN.com or on TFNN's YouTube channel and become the investor you were born to be. TFNN, educating investors. You might think that if you want to be successful at trading in the stock market, you're going to need a crystal ball. After all, it's impossible to predict the future, right? Like any endeavor in life, before you decide it's impossible, get some advice from the experts. You might find that it's not so impossible after all. For daily market overviews that give you direction on the key indices, selective stocks and commodities, subscribe to the opening call newsletter at TFNN.com. The opening call newsletter is written by Basil Chapman, creator of the trading methodology known as the Chapman Wave. The Chapman Wave up-down sequence gives you an edge in identifying price turns, finding the peaks and valleys in stock prices.  First time subscribers also get a 30 day money back guarantee. If you're not satisfied, let us know and you'll get a full refund within 30 days of signing up. TFNN.com, educating investors.  The target first mortgage program may be the program for you. The best rate on a five-year CD in the country right now according to bankrate.com is paying 1% per year or $1,000 per a $100,000 invested. The target first mortgage program pays 7% per year, paid monthly on secured, high-value, billable properties in St. Petersburg, Florida. The investment is for four years, paying 7% per year or $7,000 per a $100,000 invested. Your investment is secured by high-value real estate in St. Petersburg, Florida. Your investment can be anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000. Do you want to make $1,000 per year on $100,000 invested or $7,000 per year on a secured target first mortgage? The target first mortgage program may be just the program for you. The target first mortgage program pays 7% per year, paid monthly. For more information, you can call<PHONE_NUMBER>. That's<PHONE_NUMBER>. Don't forget, you can listen to TFNN live on your mobile device 24 hours per day. Go to TFNN.com and hit watch Tiger TV. That's TFNN.com and hit watch Tiger TV. Welcome back folks to Dow. Dow Industries right now at 32, you get the Nasdaq up 106, S&P zero up 15. And I didn't see a couple of those questions, but I believe there was a question there about what are the best building codes in the country. And I believe what you have is that it's South Florida and California. And the reason it's California is the earthquakes in California and South Florida, of course, what ends up happening is they get pounded. I believe it's 160. We're at 140, meaning, and that's sustained wins, folks. That's not Gus, that's sustained wins. But I believe that's how it goes. We'll see where this shakes out. We didn't have a chance to get into, which no doubt is a big deal, is the amount of homes that get built where things keep flooding over and over again.  What happens is that more people actually get killed in the flooding aspect of it than the wind aspect of it, of all these storms. Because when those floods come in, none of us are used to it. That's the real bottom line. I mean, when I say none of us are used to it, where are we used to it here? Because we're on the water, so you're always watching it. What ends up happening inland because of the way that the flow goes, meaning rivers go, you have a river, you're not thinking that you're gonna get a flash flood. And that's exactly what happened when that last storm came in and went up the coast. And that's what happened in New Jersey and New York. So pretty, pretty wild. There's no doubt about it. Market-wise out here, bottom line, you get a sideways move. You get a sideways move. We're gonna take a look at the spy out here. Spies trading out at a price point of up to $1.39, not much movement. Cues are up $2.35, I believe. We're up $2.63, same setup. You get a sideways move. I expect what you're doing out here is you're building cars for lower price. That's how this baby's set up. Gold, nice bid, silver nice bid. Oil's been going up, no doubt about that. The doll is gonna be interesting to see where they get fall through to the downside. Always remember, folks, the bear can claw your heart out, the bull can run you over, and thank God, there's always another trade. Health happens in prosperity. Have a great night, folks. Have a safe night. Come back and visit us tomorrow morning. Tommy kicks us off nine o'clock in the morning. Have a great one, folks. Have a safe one.


It's a real pleasure for me to be here and I want to extend Dr. Hernandez's congratulations on this conference for the eighth year in a row in everyone's attendance. Such an important issue, the issue of women in cardiovascular disease has been highlighted before. So congratulations again and I'm always humbled to be here truthfully. So today I'm going to talk a little bit about diabetes, combination regimens, what's in the mixed bag for women. So I take some liberty with combination and I'm really going to talk more about what's in the bag for women and what's in the bag that you reach for. I'm going to briefly describe the interrelationship between diabetes and cardiovascular disease both in men and women. Then utilized briefly focused on some of the ADA guidelines to create a combined or multifaceted approach to CV risk reduction in patients with diabetes. But we'll spend the most of my time is really to integrate new information that we've learned over the last five to six years about anti-diabetic agents with proven CV safety and efficacy in the management of our patients with diabetes. So now we're running a little over but I'm going to throw it out a little bit because I know people here are clinicians. So I'm going to start with two clinical cases and maybe just take a poll by raise of hands. So the first patient is Catherine. She's a 61-year-old woman who has stable coronary artery disease, five-year history of uncontrolled diabetes, and a two-year history of chronic kidney disease with an EGFR of 45. Our BMI is 31 despite attempts to make behavioral changes. She's being treated with maximum doses of metformin and gliburide. So not too in common from what we use. Given her history and comorbidities, which of the following agents or approaches to her diabetes regimen would you provide would provide cardiovascular effects and reduce her cardiovascular risk? One, keep the course. No changes necessary. Two, stop the gliburide and initiate insulin. Three, add a DPP4 inhibitor, citagliptin. Four, add empagliflosesin and then SGL2 inhibitor. And five, add laryngotide, a GOP1 receptor agonist. So lots of agent, lots of things to choose from. Just quick hands. So one, anyone? Two, three, four, five. Okay. So kind of a mix in the group and we'll come back to that in a minute. Second case is something that I've been interested in. A 55-year-old woman with a history of heart failure with reduced rejection fraction has a history of hypertension and a five-year history of uncontrolled diabetes who's on metformin. Many of us are PCPs, many of us are cardiologists, but you've been consulted to talk about cardiovascular risk. And would you change any of the medications based on her cardiac history? One, no changes are necessary. Two, discontinue metformin and initiate insulin. Three, add citagliptin, a DPP4 inhibitor. Four, add empagliflosesin and SGL2 inhibitor, or five, add laryngotide. And again, just briefly, one, two, three, okay, a handful, four, okay, and five. Great. So a little spun. So we're going to go through this because the bag that we have now is quite large, right? And that's just a few choices. I could have made the list even longer. So how do we decide when we're taking care of patients and how do we integrate the new information? So as we know and as Stephanie alluded to, the problems of diabetes continues to grow. Despite whatever we do on our regular day, if we're clinicians, researchers, we know that this prevalence continues to increase. It's estimated that 30 million Americans are living with diabetes, again, of which 7.2 million have undiagnosed diabetes. And we know that this prevalence is increasing in certain subgroups, particularly ethnic minority women, that they're driving some of this increase that we see in largely dovetails of rates of obesity. By 2030, if this is unchecked, the prevalence is estimated to rise to about 54.9 million. And despite how we treat diabetes, despite the improvements we made in blood pressure control and cholesterol control, it still is associated with reduced survival, years of life lost. And this is shown on this slide, both for men and women, that the presence of diabetes shifts the curve leftward and downward so that you lose life if you have diabetes. So it's not a benign condition despite our improvements in how we care for it. And this is the challenge. And again, when we think specifically about what's driving these future years of life lost to diabetes, it's cardiovascular disease. It has been and it remains cardiovascular disease. And this is shown here on this slide, both for men as well as for women. And you can see that it lists vascular deaths, cancer deaths, non-cancer deaths, a variety of deaths here. And we can see that indeed, vascular deaths account for the majority of years lost. And this is greater in women. So the impact of diabetes in women seems to be higher than men. And at least it takes away any protective effect women have against cardiovascular disease. It sort of mitigates that benefit. So when we talk about how do we manage this or how do we reduce this risk with cardiovascular disease, it really does take a multifaceted approach. Again, this idea of a combination. It's not just glucose, it's everything. And it's what we've heard in the last two excellent lectures. One has to do with blood pressure control, make sure we treat it and we treat it appropriately. Recent guidelines at the ADA say less than 140 over 80. There's some controversy, 130 over 80. And the new guidelines have been suggestive and this may be appropriate in people with diabetes. Lipid therapy, we've heard the first talk, high-dose statin if you have cardiovascular disease, moderate to high-dose statin with you have other risk factors. So we need to be aggressive. Aspirin always complicates and very excellently described earlier when appropriate. And then glucose control. Glucose control is important. Guidelines say that hemoglobin A1C should be less than 7% for most adults. If you can get lower, easier in people who have a shorter duration of diabetes, who aren't on multiple medicines and don't have multiple comorbidities, maybe it's appropriate. If people have lots of comorbid conditions, if they are on lots of medicines, they're having hypoglycemia, we probably should not be very aggressive with them and less stringent goals of less than 8% may be appropriate in that group. So we've known this and we've known this for a while and we're doing better but we still have a lot of room to improve. What's shown on here are data from the in-hane study over a 20-year period from 1988 to 2010. And there are different targets here. So we have A1C on the left, less than 7%, less than 8%. We have two blood pressure categories, LDL on statin. And what we can see over this temporal period is color-coded that we've improved. We've done a better job. We continue to do a better job in lots of systems approaches. But we still could do a lot better. For example, if we look at statin here in 2010, we're only at 50% to 60%. And then when we think about what's been shown to improve outcomes and we think about this multifaceted approach that is not one target but really it's all of them, we look down at people who have all these targets controlled, we see we have a lot of room for improvement. Again, this probably will take systems approaches. Patients are part of this, compliance with medications, but it definitely opens this room that we know kind of what to do, but we have to be able to implement this and becomes very important. So I'm going to switch gears. There we go. Yeah. Switch here is a little bit and now really turn to the newer medicines and what I like to call driving forces in how we treat patients today. I had a nice cup of coffee with one of the doctors from Fort Worth who's been practicing for 40 years outside and loves it. Thank you for that. And you know, over that time period, we've had an explosion of new medications that are available for treatment of diabetes in this bag, if you will. For the longest time, from 1920 up until the 90s, the mid 90s, we had insulin and we had sulfonylureas and we had a by Gwanai, we had Phenformin come in and then met pulled off the market and then met Formin come in.  But over this time period, there's been an explosion in the class of medicines that are available. And within each class, we know there are four or five different types of medicines. So we have lots and lots of choices over this time period for the treatment of diabetes. So how do we choose? I'm having a little trouble moving forward. There we go. So in part, we're now choosing, again, based in part on new information we're learning from cardiovascular outcome trials. You know, in the past, we would choose often based on side effects of medications on, you know, how they may influence surrogate outcomes, which one was stronger for A1C. But in 2008, almost a decade ago, it was in the fall of 2008, the FDA said that from now on, as we get these new medications, as we have these all these data available that we as clinicians would need more information in order to treat patients. So the FDA in 2008 said, you can't just lower blood glucose alone. You have to show that these medicines are safe in people who have high cardiovascular risk, you know, not just lower risk people, just lowering glucose isn't enough. It has to be safe in real people who are at risk for heart disease. And even better, wouldn't it be good if it lowered heart disease? But at a minimum to bring a drug to market today, it had to be safe. And it said certain requirements. You couldn't have an increased hazard ratio. You had to follow them for at least two years. A variety of things that industry was mandated to bring people for trial. And it was in this setting that every new drug that was brought to market now had a new cardiovascular outcome trial. So again, up until 2018, we have one or two studies. But after 2008, when the FDA mandated that we had this explosion of trials that became available with over 200,000 participants enrolled in the study, not to lower blood glucose, not to take a drug and lower blood glucose, but to take a drug and see is it safe and can it lower cardiovascular disease? Diabetes, cardiovascular disease, not diabetes, glucose. And so we've had an explosion of those studies. And it really ushered in this new era where could we move beyond management of diabetes or in just lowering A1C alone? Could we lower CVD risk with these medications? So today, there have been nine, nine CV outcome trials. And I'm briefly going to go over on nine and they'll give me that luxury, but sort of in the classes.  And these are DPP4 inhibitors or GLP1 agonists. What incretin means is just a review is that when you are more insulin is secreted after glucose is provided orally than intravenously. So if I eat a sandwich, my more insulin is secreted than if I were to take a glucose shot. And that's in part related to the incretin hormones in the gut, predominantly GLP1 and GIP, which stimulate insulin release after a food intake. Now these hormones in the gut are rapidly degraded. So to take advantage of that pharmacologically, they created analogs of resistant to degradation or inhibit the enzyme which degrades at the DPP4 enzyme. These are associated with other effects, early satiety, which make promote weight loss. There are different GLP1 receptors in the body. So maybe some pleotropic effects. In general, these medicines are well tolerated, particularly as monotherapy. There's a low risk for hypoglycemia. The GLP1 receptor agonists, the injectables are associated with weight loss as well as mod reductions in blood pressure. In general, the GLP1 receptor agonists can have some adverse effects, GI effects and nausea, which can be mitigated with some patient instructions as far as monitoring what they eat particularly early on and avoiding large meals. So let me show you the three studies that have been published for the DPP4 inhibitors. Very popular medicines, very popular. I imagine it was choice three on our question, right? Or two, I can't remember. So for the DPP4 inhibitors, there was three studies, the Saber Timmy study examined anticos. And so all these studies are kind of similar. I think what you need to know is they were high risk groups, either people who had cardiovascular disease or who had an acute coronary event, but they were high risk so that you could get the events. So when you think about how this applies to my low risk patients, you want to be careful as we think about the applicability. But for each DPP4 inhibitor, we can see that the primary outcome, which was a combined outcome of stroke, MI, or cardiovascular death, was neutral, as shown here, shown on this on the hazard line. So it was one. So they all met their non-inferiority endpoint. They were as good as placebo, but they weren't superior. When you looked at different outcomes, there was some heterogeneity that is practicing doctors. I think we have to be aware that they weren't all the same, particularly for the outcome of heart failure, that in the Saber study that Saxagliptin was associated with increased heart failure events. In the examined study, Alec Lipton had a slight increased risk as well as shown on this slide. This is an unexpected finding and an unexplained finding. But nonetheless, the FDA in 2016 said we need to be aware of this and they added a warning to the label that said heart failure risk was increased with Saxagliptin and Alec Lipton, particularly in people who had a history of heart failure or chronic kidney disease. So if you're taking care of someone and they have heart failure and you're using Saxagliptin and they have decompensation, you probably want to switch that medicine. So moving on from the DPP4 inhibitors to the GLP1 agonist, we know that there are many of these on the market. They predominantly vary in their half-life and their pharmaconetics, and I've listed them here. There are some that are dose twice daily, like the original biota, exenitide, and then going down to weekly, for example, exenitide weekly or bi-dureum, which is shown here. For the GLP1 agonist, there have been four studies that have been published to date. So remember the DPP4 inhibitors? They were neutral and had some heart failure signal. With GLP1 agonist, there is some excitement, and I'm going to go into these a little bit in more detail, but there are four studies, again in the same manner, listed here on the slide. But what we see here is that two of the studies were actually positive, which is really exciting, that they actually lowered cardiovascular disease, and that was a sustained sixth study with semaglutide and larygulotide, the leader study. And I'm going to just show a little bit more on larygulotide, because this is what's available, and it has now, I'll show you an FDA approval. Larygulotide, this study included nearly 10,000 individuals who had cardiovascular disease, and what we can see here is the primary outcome was reduced, and people who were randomized to larygulotide compared to placebo, with a 13% reduction in the primary outcome. In addition to that primary outcome, we saw the cardiovascular-related death, as well as death from any cause was reduced. So this is interesting. Right now, a diabetes medicine is associated with improved outcomes, again, not for diabetes, but for cardiovascular disease. Also with larygulotide, and I think as we think about these new agents, is this whole story that's coming about on renal protection, but not only are they associated with cardiovascular benefits, but they also seem to be associated with renal protection. This is from the leader study looking at the effects of larygulotide on the composite renal outcome compared to placebo, and in part may be related to some of the cardiovascular effects that we're seeing. And again, larygulotide now, like, now has an FDA indication for reducing the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and CV death in adults with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease. So very similar to the population that was in leader, that the medicine is now improved for this cardiovascular indication. Excel is another study that was probably the most recently, the most recent of all the CV outcome trials published. This was a study looking at the once weekly formation of exenitide. I don't know how many of you use that. It is commercially available. It showed that the outcome was non-inferior. The primary outcome was, the hazard ratio was 0.91 as shown on the slide. It almost meant superiority, but it didn't come quite close. But kind of interesting, if you go over to the, so that was a primary outcome. It's non-inferior, not superior, but if you look over to the right upper quadrant, you can see that death from any cause was actually reduced with exenitide compared to placebo. This should be considered, because the primary endpoint wasn't met. This is really exploratory, but kind of interesting because it goes along with what was seen in laryngotide. And if you know the study, I was one of the U.S. national coordinators for it. There was a high dropout rate. 40% of people stopped the medicine. So it's remarkable that we saw that signal in this trial, and I think it's just something we keep in the back of our mind. So in summary for the GLP-1, all the trials have met their primary goals showing there's no increased risk of CVD. Leader and sustained six actually demonstrated benefit on MACE as well as mortality with laryngotide. I'm going to finish here, and I'm just going to go over the last class of medications, which are the SGL-2 inhibitors. Remember, these are the medicines that inhibit the SGL-2 receptor, which is in the kidney, so they promote glucoseuria, they inhibit glucose reabsorption. They're associated with modest effects on A1C, modest effects on blood pressure, and modest effects on plasma volume. And probably the study that got the most excitement was this study called EMPA-REG, looking at EMPA glyphosin, which looked at 7,000 individuals with cardiovascular disease, and this is a primary outcome which showed that that medicine was associated with significantly reduced events in the primary MACE outcome over the study. And really interesting as we think about mechanisms is if you look at the Kaplan-Meier curves, they begin to separate pretty early, you know, different than what we would normally see, for example, with statins. So the mechanisms are still being worked out on why these curves seem to separate early, but they did. Cardiovascular death was also reduced in EMPA-REG with EMPA glyphosin, and then finally, and I think very important, is heart failure was significantly reduced with EMPA glyphosin versus placebo with a hazard ratio of 0.65. So this was, again, I think somewhat unexpected from this drug class, because we weren't really sure about the mechanisms. Similar to laryngotide and similar to other medicines in this class, kidney disease was reduced with EMPA glyphosin compared to placebo. And again, this idea that, like we think about ACE inhibitors, that there may be a special place for these medicines in renal protection. So just like laryngotide, so laryngotide has an FDA indication, EMPA glyphosin also has an FDA indication, slightly different, because it was, EMPA was approved for reducing the risk of cardiovascular death and adults with people with type 2 diabetes and CBD. So cardiovascular death, which is a really, again, a big deal when you think about how we treat diabetes.  And was it a class effect? Was it real? Is when we heard this new study, which is called CANVAS, which looked at the same medication, the same class of medication called cannibalphosin. And we looked at the outcomes in that group of patients, and we saw that similarly to the EMPA study that the primary outcome was reduced with cannibalphosin compared to placebo. Death and cardiovascular causes was not statistically significant, but if we look at the far right, we can see that hospitalization for heart failure was also reduced in this group of individuals. So kind of in line with the EMPA story, that these medicines seem to have some beneficial effect on the primary base outcomes, as well as maybe a special role in heart failure prevention. Again, renal effects were lower in that group as well. So there's no free lunch, right? We've learned in diabetes that we always have to be careful of the side effects. And so in cannibalphosin, one of the sort of in CANVAS, one of the unexpected findings too, was that there was a slight increased risk of amputations that was seen and it's gotten a fair amount of publicity. Again, whether this is a chance finding is unclear, the mechanisms are not known, it wasn't a large percentage, but definitely is something we would need to keep an eye on as we take care of patients. So so far, all trials have met their primary goals showing there's no increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Emporeg with empicalphosin and canvass with cannibalphosin demonstrated a benefit in MACE and mortality as well as hospitalization for heart failure. And there are further studies that are going. So I'm going to conclude here, it's a lot of information that we've learned over these last years, a lot of information I know. And I think the main points is that a multifaceted approach is needed for patients who have type 2 diabetes who are high risk for cardiovascular events. Recent cardiovascular outcome trials of these diabetic medications have provided much needed information on safety and efficacy. Leraglotide, empicalphosin and cannibalphosin have been positive, have been beneficial in patients with CBD and type 2 diabetes. And we need to keep a look out. I just showed 9, there are I think 22 in the pipeline and many patients coming. So we're going to get a lot more data. And so one of the challenges for us will be how do we incorporate all this data into practically taking care of patients? How do we reach for certain agents for each individual patient? So thank you for your attention.


just that 62-yard run and what you saw there? Matt made a great check. He called the run to the right side based off the defense. And as I was running outside, I just saw Laquan Treadwell dominating the cornerback. And as I passed him, he got off of the cornerback and blocked the safety. So it was really just a sprint for me, one of the easiest runs of the year. And I'm just grateful for it. Even though the team didn't end the way that they wanted to, what did it mean to see the continued fight and never giving up in this final game? I think JJ Watts said the best. We all pros, we get paid a lot of money to go out there and play 100%, not 50%. And anybody giving less than 100% effort really doesn't deserve the chance to get paid and play in the NFL and complete their dream. So every time I step on the field, I give 110% and a lot of people on this team do the same. Why do you think the wrong game has been so inconsistent for this team? And do you think that some people maybe weren't giving it there all? Like you said, you've been giving 110%. It's just how the games go sometimes. Sometimes we get in great push and sometimes the defense. The defensive line is doing their job. They get paid too. So it's a constant fight. And as a runner, you know that you're not going to hit the home run every time you got to keep pounding. And eventually the defense is going to mess up and miss fit. What was Raheem's message to the team in this loss in this final game that could be his final game as they head coacher? Really just he focused on us with the message, how we got to start stronger. But that was the great way we finished off the game. But it's really to tell of this season we got to have a complete game. Sometimes we have a great first half, not so good of a second half. Sometimes it's the other way around. But in the games when we had all four quarters playing good football to our ability, we made some noise in those games. But it's all about consistency in the NFL. Going back to what you mentioned about JJ's quote, did you feel there wasn't a total buy-in from everyone this year with folks not giving 100%? Did you feel like that? No, I thought you would see it on the sideline in every one of our losses. No matter what our record was, a loss hurts the pride, man. So I'm just proud to fight with these teammates. And I'm lucky to have them because with a year like this, it is easy to just say whatever. Let's focus on next year. Let's go tanking. No, we came out every game and tried to win. And I have all the respect for my teammates for that. What are the traits that you look for and possibly a new head coach? I mean, that's not really my job to hire coaches. I'm just going to play for whoever I play for next year. Going to give them 100% on special teams and all of them. Would you like to see Raheem Morris back next year for the Falcons as the head coach? I'd love to see Raheem Morris back. He's a great coach. Obviously, he had nothing to do with personnel this year. He just worked with what he had. And I feel like he did a good job.


and the idea is that we look at infinite probabilistic systems modeled by probabilistic push-down automata and we have a specification given by a finite system, a finite transition system with probabilities and the question is, can we establish whether the infinite system is simulated by the finite one? Okay, that will be the main question.  What we have is a finite set of control states. We have a bunch of labels that are attached to the transitions and there is a set of finite set of stack symbols and there is a transition relation and what I use is the disnotation where you go from control state P with stack symbol X and then you read the next symbol A and you go to a configuration which is Q, control state and stack content will be alpha. So here is a famous example that you all know. It recognizes the language 0 to the power n, 1 to the power n for n larger than 0. The idea is you enter the control state. If you see a 0, you push an A. The Z simply is denoting the empty stack in the beginning. So if you see a 0 again, you push an A. At some point you do an epsilon transition to this and here you're going to pop the ones and you get to the success state only if the number of ones coincides with the number of zeros. Good. I guess you all have seen those kind of examples. What's the semantics of a pushdown automaton? It's based in terms of an infinite label transition system where the states are the configurations of the pushdown automaton and it's typically defined as follows that if this is a transition in the pushdown automaton so if you can go from PX to Q alpha then you can go from the configuration PX beta. So beta is a stack content by reading the symbol A to Q alpha beta. Good. This is all well-known stuff. Why is this interesting? Why are we looking at a pushdown automaton? Well, pushdown automaton are actually a very elegant model to model recursive procedural programs. So one way to view this is as follows. If you have a configuration like this, Q X Y 1 up to Y n, then the intuition behind such a configuration is that Q is the current, let's say, valuation of all the global variables in your program. X could, for instance, contain the value, the current value of the program counter plus the valuation of all local variables of the current active procedure. And then for all procedures that you already have invoked or, let's say, in the whole chain of recursive process calls, you have an activation record that keeps track of some local variables plus a return address, okay? So this gives a very natural model for recursive procedural programs. Then you can model transitions as follows.  You get a new activation record and pop, push it on the stack.  So in that sense, you can quite naturally model those kind of systems. Verification of Poisson Automata is actually well studied and is actually also currently studied. There was a paper this year at FASA about this Microsoft tool which is using actually Boolean programs and looks at PDAs for recursive Boolean programs. Good. What is our interest? Our interest is probabilistic boost on automaton. I'm going to explain you what it is. We are viewing them as implementations, as programs, probabilistic programs where you have assignments where you can, which are randomized, and they have to be simulated by a finite specification, and my final specifications will be finite probabilistic transition systems. Before I go to that, I first, I want to talk about the results between checking, for instance, by-simulation and simulation relations on Poisson Automata. Now, this is known to be decidable. Interesting is the proof of sterling in 2000 because I get back to that because we're partly, partially using his kind of techniques to establish a similar result here. It's, in fact, time complete, as proven last year by Kouchera and Richard Maia. If you look at variants like weak by-simulation, then this turns out to be undecidable. If the number of control states is larger than 1, the number of control states is 1, it's unknown. And if you look at strong and weak by-simulation between a model given as a pushdown, a automaton, and a specification given as just a finite label transition system, then this is p-space complete. Okay? So, simulation or by-simulation, strong and weak is both, let's say, p-space complete. If you look at simulation, then strong similarity between pushdown automaton is undecidable. Actually, old result by Jan Fries-Hoth and Hans Huttel. And a strong weak simulation between a pushdown automaton and a finite transition system. So, by-simulation was p-space complete. This becomes x-time complete. So, it's, let's say, in a different complexity class. Good. What we are going to show is that strong similarity between a probabilistic pushdown automaton and a finite probabilistic transition system lies in the same complexity class. It's namely x-time complete, which simply means adding probabilities to this result does not involve, let's say, the complexity. Good. Why do we look at probabilities? Well, they're used in randomized distributed systems. If you want to talk about the performance of systems, if you want to model components that can fail, then typically you are talking about the failure rate. Security protocols are heavily based on probabilities, so there are many reasons to look at probabilities. Good. So, our specifications are probabilistic transition systems. Let me explain to you what these are. These contain the state's actions, and the only interesting part is the transition relation, which takes you from a state by an action to a distribution over the states. Okay? So, a transition is denoted as follows. We go from a state with an action to a distribution mu, and that's a distribution over the state space. Good. So, they generalize label transition systems. If you take all distribution to be Dirac, which simply means with probability one, you go to one specific state. You just have a label transition system. You get Markov decision processes where the transition relation is simply a function and not a relation. Okay? So, if you're more familiar, you're more happy with MDPs. You just use MDPs. It's a small example. Here you have those four states. You can either do with A, and then with probability one, you will take the self-loop. You can also do with B, and then with probability half, you go there, and with probability half, you go there, and so forth. So, I think pretty straightforward. Then you can define notions like probabilistic bisimulation. So, an equivalence relation R, this state space is a strong bisimulation. Well, if S can go to a distribution mu and T can go to a distribution mu, such that the probability of going to some equivalence class is the same. So, the probability of mu to go to some equivalence class C is the same as going for mu to that equivalence class, then actually those two states, S and T, are called bisimilar. And then, bisimilarity is simply the largest of such relations. Good. Here is a small example of two bisimilar probabilistic transition systems. Here you see a transition system on the left. Here, a probabilistic transition system on the right. Why are they probabilistic bisimilar? Well, the only thing is that this state has been copied. As you see there, there is two times this state. And here, the sum of going to a state where you can do an error transition is 0.1 plus 0.1 is 0.2, and that's the same as in the left picture. So, therefore, they are bisimilar. Good. Import some facts about this probabilistic bisimulation. It actually turns out to be the same as lumping, a well-known notion in Markov chain theory. It coincides with notions like probabilistic CTL star equivalence. Checking between finite models is p-time-complete. Minimization can be done quite efficiently using a variant of paid star jump minimization. And you can yield exponential state-space savings. What is the difference then with assimilation pre-order? Assimilation pre-order is now defined as follows. Now you take a relation R, not necessarily in equivalence. And this is a strong simulation if, well, for any pair of states in that relation, the set of enabled actions in S and T coincides. And if S can do a transition to some distribution, then T can go to a distribution nu. For some distribution nu, such that mu and nu are related, and this R bar is the lifting of the relation between states to distributions. I'm going to explain to you what that means. Strong similarity is then simply the largest of such simulation relations. Good. So what does that R bar mean? And the way to define it is by means of weight functions. This is a concept defined by Jones and Plotkin in the late 80s. That says the following. You give me a relation between states. I give you a relation between distributions on those states. If there is a certain function, which is called the weight function, it distributes the two distributions over the states in such a way that the following conditions hold. If you take the sum over all the T's of W, you get exactly the distribution over S. This is the symmetric case where if you take the sum over all S, then you get the distribution over nu. And you only assign positive numbers to those states which are related. Now, this is technically a bit involved. Therefore, I have a small example. So suppose I have two distributions. One is on the left, where you go with 2 over 9 to that state, with 5 over 9 to that state, and so forth. And the other distribution is depicted on the right. Okay? There is a weight function between those two distributions. Why? Well, there are these dashed lines indicated with those numbers. And why is it now a weight function? Well, the easy way to understand this is you read this picture from left to right. You can see that the amount of probability mass going into T is, for instance, 5 over 9, and that's actually the sum of the probability mass that goes out of T. These are exactly the sum of this 1 over 9 plus 4 over 9. Okay? And this applies to all the states. 2 over 9 goes in here, and the sum of the outgoing ones is 2 over 9. And the nice thing is you can also read this from right to left and then the same property holds. For instance, if you go to W, well, this is an interesting case, to go to U with 1 over 3, then you see this is exactly the sum of the probabilities to go here and to go there. Okay? Now, this is a weight function. This dashed line with these numbers. If such a weight function exists, then this distribution is being simulated by the other one. Good. And here is an example of two probabilistic transition systems based on the same example. This state is being simulated by that state. Why? Here's an example that I had on the previous slide. 2 over 9 and 5 over 9 if you go back. 2 over 9 and 5 over 9 plus 2 over 9 to some deadlock state Z. These are exactly the successor of S1. And here you have these three successors, which correspond exactly to these three, and then there is a certain deadlock state which I can reach with 1 over 9. Because there is such a weight function, it means that S1 is being simulated by S2. I hope you get some feeling about what a simulation relation and the probabilistic contact means.  Okay? So it's a maximal flow problem. If you are fully probabilistic system, so you have not, let's say, in a state, the choice between two distributions, then actually simulation equivalence and bi-simulation coincide. We consider a model with non-determinism, and there the two notions do make a difference. Checking simulation can be done in this complexity, and if you remember M log N was bi-simulation, this is a bit more actually has some higher complexity, and actually the way to achieve this is using parametric flow algorithms. It preserves a certain safe fragment of probabilistic CTL, things like lower bounds on reachability probabilities or upper bounds on reachability probabilities and lower bounds on box properties are preserved. And people use this for abstraction. So typically you make a model, you make it smaller, and then you would like to establish whether the smaller model is simulating the original model. So there is where people really use this notion of simulation. Good. So we are using probabilistic push-down automaton for our implementations and those finite transition systems as our specifications. So what is a probabilistic push-down automaton? It's just a push-down automaton as you are used to. The only difference being that if you have the transition relation, the target is a distribution over the configurations, and that's it. Okay? So here is a small example. I will get back to that in a minute. Suppose in this simple example we don't have any control states, we just have those three stack symbols, and this means if I have a z, then with probability x I push y on the stack, with probability 1 minus x I push d on the stack, and this means, for instance, similarly, if I have a d on the stack, then with probability x I pop it, which means epsilon, the empty words, and with probability 1 minus x I push another d on the stack. That's the way to read these distributions. Good. What is the configuration graph? I don't think I have to go into all the details. It's a finite probabilistic transition system where the states are the configurations. Okay? Similar as push-down automaton. Same example as before. What's the state space of this one? It actually turns out to be a Bernoulli random walk. What you see is as follows. Take, for instance, this state z, then with probability x I push a y on the z, which means I go to the right. Okay? Then I get to, for instance, this configuration yz. With y I can, for instance, push another y with probability x, which means I go to the right with probability x and I get to y, y, z, and so forth. Okay? And this means a doubly, an infinite sequence that goes into some key results about what is known about these probabilistic push-down automaton. Well, there's actually quite something known about fully probabilistic push-down automaton. So those that have no nondeterminism, because they are equally expressive as recursive Markov chains, a model by Atasami and Yanakakis. Qualitative PCTL model checking is actually decidable. Qualitative means is the probability larger than zero, or is it equal to one? Quantitative properties of omega-regular properties are actually decidable, worked by Espasa, Richard Meyer, and others. And actually, you can also compute some expectation values. What about bisimilarity? Well, so far, there is only result by Brasdil and Kuchera and some co-authors, and they say the following strong probabilistic bisimilation between such a probabilistic push-down automaton with nondeterminism and the finite PTS is X-time complete. What we are going to show is that probabilistic simulation lies exactly in the same complexity class. And this is not the case in the non-probabilistic case, okay? That's the main, let's say, thing. So what's the take-home message before I get into some more details? This is the case in the non-probabilistic setting. If you want to check whether a push-down automaton is similar to a finite transition system, then this is PSPACE complete. If you want to know whether it's simulated by a finite transition system, this is X-time complete. In the probabilistic case, it works like this, and this is actually the achievement in this paper. So what's the problem statement to be more precise? We're interested in the theoretical complexity of checking the strong simulation. So this is the following decision problem. You give me a configuration of the push-down, a probabilistic push-down automaton, let's say of the form P-alpha, and you give me a state, S, of a finite probabilistic transition system. What we have to check is, do we have that P-alpha is being simulated by S, or vice versa, is S being simulated by P-alpha? We can do it in both directions. It's not right, and this is X-time complete. And actually, if you fix the number of control states and the number of states in your transition system, then both problems can actually be solved in polynomial time. Good. What's the approach? The naive approach will be the following. You just... We know that checking a simulation relation between an ordinary push-down automaton and a finite label transition system is X-time complete. Okay? So what we could do is just take the proof technique for that result and carry it over to the probabilistic case and you're done. Well, that does unfortunately not work. Why not? Because the result of this... I mean, the proof of this result is based on verifying modern new calculus against the PDA. So it relies on the fact that you can check modern new calculus on PDAs. Okay, so if you would like to do something like this in the probabilistic case, you need to have something like quantitative model checking on PDAs, but we already saw, as far as I've proven, this is not decided. The naive approach does not work. Okay? Good. So what we did is we applied a technique that has been developed by Sterling in 2000. Sterling used... called this technique the extended stack technique, and he used that for checking strong by simulation between probabilistic... between push-down automaton. Okay? And the idea is the following. Take an extended stack symbol u, which is actually a function, right? So this extra symbol that you add to the stack alphabet is a function which maps a control state to a configuration. And the intuition of Sterling was, well, you do this if this q u is by similar by P alpha. Okay, we adapted it as follows, and in the proof this is quite a drastic change. You map a control state q now to a set of states in the finite probabilistic transition system. Okay? So we don't map to configurations anymore. And the idea is the following. If you have q x alpha simulated by s, then we add this stack symbol u where this stack... this set u is exactly the set of states such that q alpha is being simulated by s. And what you then do is you add this function u to your ordinary stacks, and then what you allow to do is then, or anything what you normally allow to do with stack symbols. Then what we did is we devised a tableau method for deciding probabilistic similarity such that you get the following theorem in a sense. s simulates this configuration on the left if and only if there is a successful tableau which has as a root exactly what you want to prove. And then we use a refinement technique on the over that tableau or based on that tableau for getting the x-time complexity bound. The hardness result is actually trivial or almost trivial because that follows directly from a reduction to standard bisimulation, having those direct distributions. So that's not a big deal. So the big deal actually is basically this adaptation of this stack technique by Sterling and to develop this tableau technique. I don't have much time to go in this tableau technique, but I would like to give you some flavor about how it works. This is the probabilistic transition system that we have seen before. It's a four-state machine. This is an example of a probabilistic push-down automaton. It has three control states, r, p, and q. And what, for instance, you see is that in this state, this configuration px with probability half on input symbol b, you go to q, and with probability half you pop x and you go to control state r. So here you see that there is some probabilities to go from the middle, let's say, sequence of states to the uppermost or the lowermost sequence of states. Now, what's the claim? The claim is that pxn plus one is being simulated by s1. So what does that mean? Well, take, for instance, px square. The claim is that this is being simulated by s1. Okay? Good. How to prove this? Well, this is a bit involved. You have to show that, actually, a certain relation is a probabilistic simulation. And how does it work? What we do is we use this tableau technique. So this is what we need to prove. We have some extended stack symbols. We remember those match or those map, basically control states to sets of states in the finite transition system. So these are two stack symbols, u and v. And then we go as follows. Suppose, so this you have to read, if these premises hold, then I can conclude what is above the line. It's not the way you're probably used to, but in those tableaus it goes from bottom to top. So this is a reduction rule that tells you if this holds and this holds, and in addition I know that this holds, then we can conclude this. And how does that works? Well, you know that pxu is being simulated by s1. Let's assume that this is the case. Then you have to check that for every s in u, q, so in the function, the stack symbol that maps this control state to the set of states in the transition system, that this relation holds. Okay, if you check this for p, well, then it's easy because p is mapped onto the empty set, so I don't have to check anything. q is mapped to s2. What does that mean? I need to check whether qx is being simulated by s2. And what happens for the rest is that r is being mapped to s3, so the last thing that I have to check is whether r of x is being simulated by s3. And this is what you do, and then basically you now have to, of course, check whether these two things hold. That's not difficult to check because it just applies by unfolding. You know that these two transitions are available in the probabilistic pushdown automaton, and then I can conclude when x is being simulated by s4 that then qx is being simulated by s2 and so forth. These are meant to be green. Why? Because they are in the simulation relations, so these are successful tableaux notes. I know that these conditions are true. I don't have to deduce any further. And if you continue this, I don't want to go through all the steps, then you get, in the end, a finite tableaux. That shows that actually the whole procedure becomes decidable. And then if you combine this with the refinement technique, you get the exponential time upper bound. Okay? Good. One final bit is combined transitions. If you look at these two pictures, this one on the left is not being simulated by the right one. And what's the problem is that, of course, these numbers, 0.9, 0.1, are different than 0.8 and 0.2 over here. But the left-most intransition is actually a convex combination of the transitions on the right-hand side. Here you see that there is an intransition that can move to that state with 0.9, and there is an intransition that can go here with 0.5. If you now take three quarters times this probability plus one quarters times this, so you take a convex combination of the two, you get exactly 0.8 over here. So they look quite the same. And if you would take a policy or strategy or adversary to resolve the non-determinism, then any probabilistic one, well, you would admit it because it would allow you to get such a convex combination. So this gives rise to what they call a combined transition. So this is exactly what a combined transition is. It simply means it's a transition intuitively, which is built from the convex combination of other transitions. Okay? So I have a combined transition from S to a distribution mu. If there exists a sequence mu i and d i, such that there is a transition to mu i, the sum of all the d i is equals one, and mu is exactly the sum... Well, it's basically the convex combination of d i, this constant that you multiply with mu i. And in a combined simulation, and what you say is the following, if S can do a transition to mu, then T can do a combined transition to mu. Okay? So in the conclusion on the simulation, you're more liberal and you allow those combined transitions. Now, what you can show is that all the results that we have in this paper carry also over to checking this combined simulation. So that's also x-planned completed. So that brings me to the end. This is what you should remember if you want to remember something from this talk, that in a non-probabilistic case, by simulation checking between a probabilistic... between a push-down automaton and a finer transition system is p-space complete, if you then go to simulation, it becomes x-planned complete. In the probabilistic case, both by simulation and simulation checking lie in the same complexity class. Else could you study, well, you could of course study weak simulation. You could look at other kinds of models like visibly probabilistic push-down automaton, where you restrict, let's say, basically the way of pushing and popping on the stack, and you could look at special cases like one-counter, stateless, and so forth. That's it.


Okay, James P. Medan of Megalife 21 as seen on the web and Also on Facebook Progressive discussions long-running Hard-hitting truth the internet talk show. I am in my car Okay there's my hula-dent my solar power hula dance dancer and And My talismans and amulets of various kinds To ward off evil This guy in here this guy almost hit my car, you know, we're supposed to have a nor Easter Storm tomorrow. It is now March 1st. Well, let's let me get that out of the way March 1st 2018.  Of course, it's too late And one of the liquor stores that I go to over there forget about Napoli pizza they got really stingy with their portions and up their price. Anyway, I am also by All these which I just got out of all these market Here in Lodi, New Jersey We have and then I'm the strip mall also has a dollar tree And a burger king. Okay now Getting back to the so-called nor Easter the temperatures going to be above 40 degrees Fahrenheit. It is not going to be freezing Okay, we are going to receive a large amount of cold rain with moderately high winds Not very high, you know, not really From what I understand not really 50 miles an hour or over. It's going to be like, you know, moderately moderately high winds But it will not be freezing. It will not we will not be snowbound Tomorrow Friday March the second no But you would think that because we're not going to be snowbound You would think that people Will not panic That's not the case people are rushing into the supermarkets like a bunch of neurotic Morons of panicking like they're going to starve to death like they are going to be buried in snow Up to the waist or higher. They are acting like they're literally going to starve to death And we're not even getting snowbound. Now.  Do you see this? I I mean, you know, you don't physically see it because I didn't take my Smartphone out when I was shopping, but it's very true People are acting like they're going to be Deprived of food like they're going to not be able to leave their home the next day They just hear the word storm warning nor Easter But it's not gonna freeze so therefore we will not get snow and ice But they're acting like neurotic Nervous Nellies All right Panicking panic what would happen if we really have a crisis? What will happen if we Go under martial law Because the a solar storm knocked out the major power grid in the United States. What would happen if If these these people are panicking now What on earth would happen if we really had a crisis? It's insane.  It is not and I repeated it. It is not going to be Snow and ice. We are not going to be snowbound Even if we were snowbound With the Department of Public Works and everything people are usually stuck in the house no more than two days And I'm sure I am sure the average American has enough food in their home for one or two days You know, you can tell that Americans are Not deprived of calories and and sustenance Not Not to say the least.    There's the Dollar Tree Almost sounds like Idolatry, right Beach bum tanning Because white people have an obsession with getting darker But then again, if you're dark, they discriminate. How do you like that? It's like Mexico, it's like Americans Gringos love Mexican food, but they discriminate against Mexicans themselves. You know, it's Hypocrisy it's total hypocrisy All right. All right By the way, this is one of my favorite offices because I have peace and quiet in my car