You've worked on the Hill, you've worked in the White House, you've worked in NGOs. How do we make that happen? As a practical matter, this is an extraordinarily complicated set of actors who are either, if you think of it, part of the problem or part of the solution. It's not just the federal government, the states, the counties, the municipal entities that are involved in creating the law. What's a sort of practical way for moving Carl's project forward? Well, you know, I think it's an extremely good question. I think the workshops that are being held already are a key component because it's very hard, John, as you know, better than anybody to actually make any changes in the way the government does business, pass legislation, regulations, et cetera, without actually having some part of the public who's engaged in that area. And I think engaging the broader public in a discussion about what, again, I think people will think is something they should have already had, I think is a key part of this. And so continuing the discussion and continuing to have the discussions with people on the Hill with people in the judicial system. I know Carl had told me he's going to meet with the night circuit, engaging the judges, engaging law professors. And I think the other anecdote that was really very meaningful to me was this morning discussing the Pacers system and how law schools are discontinuing access for students or not allowing them in the first place because of the cost. And the idea that our law schools think that students, you know, that they're not allowing students access to the cases in a user-friendly format is incredible. I mean, that is really, it's a loss to our entire society that students come out less well educated. The process is complicated. But I think that's another area where, you know, engaging the students and the professors who are actually using this data all the time to start engaging in a more public way. Paul, I have a specific question, but I think you wanted to do it. Go ahead. No, I just think we have to find the economic incentives and disincentives. First of all, this should not be a budget item. It seems to me what you're doing, Carl, can be, you know, a benefit. And we should cast it that way. But we've got to get to the economics of this thing. These obstacles, like this Pacer problem, you know, could be worked out. I know there are internal subsidies that are at work, but we have to look through the economics in order to make this thing go. And so that's the crucial factor. I think that could be studied. And then we can show the payoffs. We can have the, this is public-private. So we've got the private sector involved. This is what we really want. And also, I think if you believe in active government, if you're at the ACS, you even need to believe in this more, not in the Federalist Society. And I'm happy they agree with it. And I'm happy this is not a controversial issue. Just one point. On, you know, Ray Mosley was talking about this famous case. Well, he was talking about it 75 years ago. The Federal Register was started. The reason it was started is because of Panama refining in 1935, right? That's the case where they were in the Supreme Court. The issue is whether FDR's hot oil regulations should be struck down as a violation of the Constitution because they were delegating legislative power. They get to the Supreme Court. They're in the middle of the argument. And one of the justices asked the government lawyer, well, where is the regulation? And of course, no one could find the regulation. And finally, when they found it, they found out it was repealed, the hot oil regulation. And so with that, the Supreme Court struck down the NIRA, the National Industrial Recovery Act, a whole statute. And so we have an obligation if we want statues to work, right, to make sure that people have access and that you have the regulations and that they're available. Because active government, even more than a passive government says, well, let's not pass any laws, right? Let's just use non-delegation. And that's the end of it. And I think that might be a dispute. Anyway, that's an important stage. I think a lot of people are today looking for that hot oil regulation. Just as we speak. Exactly. To kind of see what happened there. Well, you wrote a book called Outsourcing Sovereignty, which was an important book that talked about things like private military contractors in Iraq, outsourcing the function of prisons, core functions. What people think of, to some extent, is core functions of government. And I wonder how much of this is a problem that we've outsourced the making the law available to the public has been outsourced and really should be thought of as a core governmental responsibility. Let me get, it's a wonderful question. And it brings to mind, I just looked into times. I think yesterday there was this USDA problem. This is outsourcing inspections. This is about what's organic food? Apparently a lot of organic food has grown in China. So the USDA, this is a true story. I've just read it. The USDA outsources the inspections to a not-for-profit that's owned by manufacturers of food growers in the United States. In order to do China, this same organization outsources to the Chinese, to the Chinese government, the challenge of making sure that organic, that food has grown properly in organic food farms in China. So it's a total breakdown. It's the private, it's the contracting out twice of an inherent government responsibility, which is to make sure that our food is safe, right? So if you look, then it occurred to me, I'm saying, wait a second, we can maybe solve this problem because we get so much of our food from abroad. I mean, Latin America, China, why don't we use the wisdom of the masses, why don't we have, these are inspections, why don't we have the public commenting about whether or not the food has grown properly? And why can't we use that as a technique to get a lead on how to make sure government is acting properly because you could use it as an audit function? I mean, USDA should be able to, if it went outside, said, look, what's wrong with our inspection system? Tell us where the weaknesses are. Just one example. Contracting out is an item for the administration, which is a very important thing, I've gone too far. Should we be careful about the kind of things we contract out? And should we rethink the role of government? This does, of course, involve, and it's a hard issue, perhaps bringing functions into government. There are approximately two million employees in government. And there may be six or eight times the number of contractors. We only count the employees. We don't count the contractors. We don't even know how many there are. Another example sticking with the theme that came out recently was the two million glasses McDonald's sold with cadmium in the Shrek promotion that one might have thought would have gotten caught before two million glasses went up into the public. I'm going to open it up. We only have about 10 more minutes left, I guess, Carl, right? And so I'm going to open it up to both questions, observations, but also last minute comments on the day for people who might want to reflect both on the previous panel and keep the conversation going with Paul and Caroline. Quiet crowd? Go ahead. Bob Burback, I have a question regarding the, you mentioned the Paperwork Reduction Act. So in an ecosystem where we have a paperwork reduction act that, in a sense, discourages agencies from asking as many questions as we might want them to or they might want to, how do we move forward in the digital age where it seems that most often the only official thing has to be in print, but to encourage them to ask those questions in the digital age, there almost seems to be a conflict there and I guess my question is how do we move forward in that? Right. I think the White House open.gov folks have made some good rulings within the context of the act with saying that maybe you can use digitized solutions without even the word is paper, right? I mean, it seems like it's pretty irrelevant to what's going on. But the act still can be a barrier and it shows a mental attitude. You know, it's the government printing office, right? So it's, we got to get beyond this. It seems to me that one study we would do and I don't want to really sort of, I don't even know what the answers would be, is to take that act apart, rethink it after 25 years and or 30 years and put it back together in a way that really maybe moves in the directions we all seem to think are appropriate. I'm David Pritzker, also working with Paul for the Administrative Conference once again. The health care legislation recently passed is 2,000 plus pages. Not because the subject is so complex, or not entirely for that reason, but because of the political processes. How is any of the analysis and the perspective ability to write law better going to overcome all of the factors that cause our legislation to be as complex as it is through political disagreements. And as someone said earlier today, a variety of different values being factored into our laws. Caroline? Well, I know, that's an interesting question. I was just trying to think of whether actually, ironically, that there might have been a lot more transparency in that because of Thomas and the greater accessibility of the federal legislation than there is of state information. And so, but I do think, fundamentally, making it easier gets more citizens engaged. I don't know that that makes the law as simpler. I mean, I think the health care legislation was so inherently complex. And I think you all talked about complexity earlier. And I think there's having, I spent nine years on the hill and have seen many bills that included thousands of pages. So it doesn't necessarily, it doesn't surprise me that that particular piece of legislation was so very long. It was touching so many parts of our economy. But what I think you have is the ability of people to actually look at that bill as it was being developed is different from what happens in a lot of contexts. You know, it was, I was just thinking about the Betsy McCahy, I think is her name, who was the one who was alleging that there were death panels in the legislation. And she went on the daily show and John Stewart pulled out the bill and he pulled up the section and he read it to her and he said, where in here does it say death panel? And she tried to come up. But you know, there's a certain amount where I think that's actually perhaps an example of where it's functioning better. I mean, I'm not saying that says a lot, but it may be better than what is going on throughout the rest of the government. You know, law has always been a search for heuristics to replace case-by-case decision-making. So we are in the midst of this moment where we think we can write laws that will solve problems. We have, you know, it's an evolution of thinking and there's a lot good about detailed laws. It takes discretion away from individuals who manage, you know, implement the laws and we some many times think that's a good thing. It's discretion itself is problematic because it allows for bureaucrats to discriminate. But when you get into this thing and when you have as much of the economy at stake where the motivations are so clear that everyone wants a little piece of it, the public choice theory becomes very prominent in these issues. It's inevitable, I suppose. I would love to think one of our missions could be to help simplify. And I do think you should ask yourself if you're a legislator, every time, is there a better way to do it? And maybe this notion of getting all these laws up on the internet so that you could actually say, hey, you know, they're doing it in Oregon, they don't have mental hygiene, they've got something else and it looks, why can't we borrow that? The notion of borrowing, you know, get smarter is one we could really help encourage this way. This is just an observation. If we take the premise from the last couple of panels that law is inherently complex and law is in some sense buggy, how do you debug it? I think one of the answers coming out of the law.gov movement is that you open the source code, you open the application data and you let a lot of people take a look at it. It's probably too big for any small group to take care of, maybe even a group of small as a legislature to go back and comb through years and years of accreted legacy data. But if you open up to a lot of people, to intelligent programmers, to people who have an interest in wine or juice making or whatever their particular interest is, people actually can go through and find the bugs and look at the actual application data and see what comes out the other end of the courts. Maybe you think of the statutes as a source code and the opinions of judicial bodies and courts as application data on the back end. You need to look at both, right? And it just seems like if you're trying to debug something as complex and as large as that, the best way to do it is open the source code, open the application data, let's find out. I'm gonna turn things back over to Carl to close up here in a second, but I have one last observation slash question, which is do we need to overcome the no good deed goes unpunished issue in this world, particularly when we're dealing with public bodies and political people are making political decisions. I'm thinking specifically of recovery.gov, which was a really substantial effort to put the information up about where that recovery act money went to. And of course, there was a tremendous amount of press about the first iteration of that and all the places it was, the data was wrong. Subsequent corrections of the data or the improvement of the site has gotten fairly little attention. Is there a point in which we that we can create some kind of public movement that reinforces the instincts of political people to make openness the default position rather than the one that's the kind of frightening scary position and how do we go about doing that? I think that's a wonderful thought, John. I'm not sure I could tell you how to do it, but I do really believe that this movement that Carl is spearheading has got to have a total groundswell. I don't know if know who the enemies of it. The enemy is just people don't do things. And I just think sending that message itself and building alliances is very important. The small business community, I think is a great potential. I mean, the Chamber of Commerce, I don't know where, we can find a lot of friends for this on both sides. And I should say, my agency is a bipartisan politically balanced agency. It's one of its real strengths. It's one of the few places in government where you wanna talk to both, make sure you're not doing something that's just polarizing. So, and this movement, I think could gain from that perspective. Caroline? Well, I think it requires stepping back a little from recovery.gov and looking at the broader move of the Obama administration to provide greater transparency in government. And I think that has met with a great public welcome and people very much appreciate and think that it was there entitled to have that kind of access to their government. And so there may be bumps in the road and there's certainly, there's always gonna be the partisan fighting over the data that comes out. But I think in the broader context of what has been done in terms of providing greater access to government data, I think that that will continue to provide rewards to this administration and the future administrations that continue to follow that as their mission. Final thoughts? So I think the question was who would be against this? Who is the enemy? And I think the enemy is inertia. The enemy is that things are a certain way. There's maybe some people that benefit from the way things are. And when you're making a fundamental change, there has to be the kind of mass movement in which everybody buys in and says, gee, this is important. And I learned that lesson from two masters. The first was Mort Halpern in the early 1980s. I went to the ACLU office and I looked around. I wanted to do tech policy work and I looked around at the computers that they had at the office right next to the Supreme Court. And I told Mort Halpern, this is a mess. You need to do something better. And I spent a year or so volunteering, helping out on tech support. And while I was there, I watched Mort Halpern organize opposition to the Bork nomination and to a variety of other issues. And it was amazing the broad tent he was able to build, bringing in people that normally would argue with each other and getting them to agree on one particular thing. Now the Bork nomination was obviously a somewhat partisan issue. But the point is that he was able to build a very broad tent on the left that was able to go in. The second person I learned this from was John Podesta, who I worked for for two years. And again, I came to Washington thinking I was going to do tech policy. And I came here and I looked at the computers and I said, you know, you really need a CTO. And I spent a couple of years working on the computer systems here and helping build out the event spaces. But again, I watched as John was able to build a really broad tent at the Center for American Progress that was able to think through issues and look at the implications of them to the point when President Obama got elected. There was a policy framework in place, and that's exactly why he created the Center for American Progress, to be ready when the political climate was ready for that change. And I think that's our challenge on Law.gov is to be ready if and when the policymakers are ready for the change so that when we get to the judicial conference and the Chief Justice, if we get through the White House bureaucracy and we've had great support from the White House, but it's been a technology crowd and people like Vivek Kundra, and the question is what happens when it gets up to the Chief of Staff and you get that five minutes with the President. Can we lay out the case at that point when that time is right that this is a change that needs to happen? And I think the lesson is when that moment becomes right, the change can be very quickly. And I'm hoping that we're laying that groundwork so that when that moment occurs, we're in a position to say, look, here's what people think. Here's the process we went through. It was an open process. So we're going to be concluding this process in the next couple of days at Harvard, and that's just phase one. And phase one has been workshops and working groups. We've had 195 law librarians doing the national inventory. That process has to continue. It can't stop. We've gathered 650 people to begin discussing the issues of Law.gov. And again, that process is just beginning. It can't stop. There's going to be a set of core principles coming out of the Harvard workshop, which hopefully will be consensus principles. What are important? What do we really care about? There's going to be a report coming out early this fall. And again, it's not going to be drafting things out of the air. It's going to be reflecting what happened in the workshops. And then the hard work starts, because in September, we're going to have to take what we think is a consensus report and some consensus principles. And we're all going to have to go out and begin knocking on doors and saying, hey, this is important, getting deans to sign off on the principles of the law schools, visiting judges. And that's got to be a national effort. It can't be one or two people going and knocking on the doors. It's got to be everybody going. And just demonstrating that this issue is a palatable one and one that makes sense and will have, as Chairman Verkile said, some real benefits and benefits that we can quantify. And we can understand the costs of doing this. Because that's going to be the first question when you get to like the Chief of Staff of the White House is, OK, so what's this going to cost? Same thing in the Congress. So I really want to thank John for co-hosting this 14th workshop. I want to thank all of you. I think it's been a really valuable day. And I hope you continue your involvement in the Law and Act Health Movement. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Carl, for your leadership. Thank you. Thank you.


This video is a buster call. To find out more about how you can get me to do a personalized video on a topic of your choosing, head over to patreon.com slash Grand Line Review and scroll down to the admiral tier. But for now, enjoy the video. Hello and welcome to the Grand Line Review, your source for everything One Piece. Recently the anime has caught up with what was probably the most massive storytelling event of 2018 in the manga and we can finally declare out in the open Luffy's semi-controversial status of being considered the fifth emperor. I say semi-controversial because there are people out there in this world who will fight this statement rather voraciously. But to be fair, there is also some good general question of how Luffy got to this point, much of which is a very legitimate inquiry. So today we are going to be looking at how Luffy became the fifth emperor and furthermore, why he is entirely deserving of that title. But first and foremost, I want to be a semantic prick for a bit because a common explanation of how or why Luffy is considered to be the fifth emperor often begins with, well, he is an unofficial emperor and I take issue with that wording because there is no such thing. The Onko are not a group of individuals, but stowed as emperors like say the wallards of the sea would be by the world government. They are four individual factions who have gained the fear and respect of the world to the point where they are accepted by the general populace as emperors. In this way, there is no such thing as being officially recognized. If a chunk of the world believe you're an emperor, then that's that. I take the time to point this out because another argument that is often raised is that Blackbeard claimed that it was too soon for Luffy to become an emperor. And while that statement in and of itself may be true, Blackbeard is not denying Luffy's candidacy as an emperor. And even if he was, it wouldn't matter in the slightest because it's not up to him. And with that, I would address another common statement, which I think is best encapsulated through the following comments that I found on the internet. Luffy is not a fifth Yonko. He is considered a threat, but is not Yonko standard. Luffy won against Katakuri only by plot armor and Katakuri is not Yonko level. If I remember correctly, he tried to punch Charlotte Linlin, weakest Yonko, and failed to even get her real attention. Current Luffy is a joke compared to any Yonko. He is not a fifth emperor. And oh boy. So first of all, go and watch my Luffy versus Katakuri video to debunk the whole plot armor thing and secondly, the primary mistake being made here is that this commenter is thinking that becoming an emperor is all about strength. Yes, the Yonko are incredibly fearsome individuals in their own right. And at this point in the story, it would be foolish to think that Luffy could stand up to any one of them physically as we've seen proven on two separate occasions now. Although I don't know, maybe black beard, but we'll put that aside because individual power is not what being an emperor is really about. In reality, it's about having the capacity to become a leader and inspiring people to follow you. That inspiration can take many forms such as common goals, ideologies, fear, general charisma, and so many other factors, some of which, yes, can spawn from strength. So for example, Big Mom and Kaido are two emperors who have crafted a following of fear through their own absurd power. But then we have an emperor like Whitebeard, who while admittedly was referred to as the strongest man in the world, cultivated his following through treating his crew as honored family and developing direct ties with each and every one of them, even his extended allies. And so Whitebeard's strength was not the primary reason why he ascended into global renown and it's very much the same for Luffy. Although let's clarify this a bit further. Luffy's classification as an emperor was not an entirely organic series of events and a lot of the final push is owed to Big News Morgans. The president of the World Economic Journal, who in a very biased piece of propaganda was the one who declared Luffy's candidacy as the fifth emperor. And when I say biased, I mean that he penned statements praising Luffy's masterful intelligence and planning, as well as the ability to convince German, the sun pirates, and the fire tank pirates to follow his commands on whole cake island. All of which we know is entirely false, but at the same time, the actual truth of the matter is even more astounding. As is the legacy of the last two decades of storytelling. And so to say that Morgans is the sole reason why Luffy is considered an emperor is certainly false. He simply would not have been able to make such a bold claim without Luffy's massive body of work. Let's take a brief look at that CV right now. Luffy has personally defeated three warlords of the sea and made allies or acquaintances with a further six, one of which has become a direct subordinate of the Straw Hat Pirates. Speaking of, Luffy commands an entire crew of individuals whose ever-growing infamy and bounty value seems only to be overshadowed by his own. And in addition to that, Luffy has spawned a mammoth following of seven fearsome pirate crews, totaling over 5,000 members who collectively refer to themselves as the Straw Hat Grant Fleet. Not to mention that Luffy makes odd alliances everywhere he goes and now holds strong ties with a number of very influential kingdoms within the world government itself. As for the world government, Luffy is the only known person in the series who has conducted an invasion of each of their three major facilities. With a full-scale attack on any slobby resulting in its complete destruction, the one and only mass breakout of impaled down in the history of the prison and becoming one of two members of the worst generation to actually participate in the Paramount War. An event in which he was seen to face off against the three admirals, multiple wallards of the sea, including the world's greatest swordsman, Dracula Meahawk, punching Garp in the face, and yes, I know Garp let it happen, but that's not how it looked to everyone watching on the battlefield. Tanking a hit from Fleet Admiral Sengoku, standing on equal footing with white beard, and being the person to free port gas de ace. I mean, Marineford out of context to the world is an incredible series of achievements for Luffy and almost worthy of this status just on its own without the greater context of the series. But then there's a legendary name recognition behind Luffy.  There is a lot about Luffy to be revered even if you haven't met him. In fact, I'd say especially if you haven't met him because on paper, he is an incredible force to be reckoned with. And when you're unaware of his personality and tendencies, that could seem especially terrifying. And as much as I like to consider him equal amongst the members of the worst generation, Luffy is far and away the most dangerous and accomplished member by Blackbeard, of course. And the final step to really elevate Luffy above his contemporaries occurred on Hall Cake Island with a direct confrontation with one of the existing emperors. And while we know that Luffy and the Straw Hats barely managed to survive the encounter with Big Mom, he did manage to beat two of her sweet commanders worth over 800 million and one billion respectively, as well as be involved in a series of events that saw the entire destruction of Hall Cake Chateau dealing Big Mom an unprecedented blow. So with all of this in mind, why shouldn't Luffy be considered an emperor? His very presence is a force of chaos, far more impressive than the individual strength of any other emperor. He has amassed an astonishing following and a direct crew of incredibly notorious individuals, and he possesses one of the most impressive pedigrees of any character in the entire world. That is why someone like Big News Morgans can just stroll on in, label him the fifth emperor, and have the world just accept it, because Luffy's prior actions and current status are deserving of it. He may not be ready for the role. In fact, I highly doubt he'd even want it, but that's not going to stop his rise in the eyes of the world.  Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them. Luffy is actually a bizarre mixture of all three, born with the will of Dee, striving to become the pirate king, and having the following of a world thrust upon him during the journey. And as part of that journey, it is absolutely time that Luffy be considered as the fifth emperor of the sea. If you enjoyed this video and the content this channel produced in general, then please do consider donating to the Grand Line Review Patreon, because the support of all of your amazing people is what continues to make this channel possible. Also, do check out my Teespring store if you're interested in shirts, hoodies, and other miscellaneous items, with the proceeds going directly to support the channel as well. And if you'd like to join the fun at any time, then please do head over to my Discord server where a wide array of shenanigan retakes place on a daily basis. And finally, please do comment with your own thoughts on Luffy's status as the fifth emperor. This has been the Grand Line Review, and I'll see you next time.


In this video we provide the solution to question number 18 for the practice final exam for math 1210, in which case we have a box with a square base and no top that needs to be constructed from 75 square feet of material. We wanna find the largest possible volume of the box. Largest possible volume, this is an optimization type problem. So our optimizing function should be volume. Well, volume of a box, a straw box real quick for us, volume of a box, right, is gonna be length times width times height. Length times width times height, which we could call this length, this width in this dimension right here, height. Okay? So we wanna find the largest possible volume of this box. Well, how does the constraint come into play here? The constraint has to do with this 75 square feet of material. Now, some other things to mention is that, well, one, it says it has no top. So it turns out this box only has five sides. We can ignore the price of the top. Also it says it has a square base. So that means the base of this thing right here is a square. So we actually get that length and width are the same thing. So we can revise our volume formula and get that W squared H is the volume. So can we somehow relate height in terms of the width? Well, this is where the material for the sides is gonna come to play here. We can make a constraint using the surface area of this box. So the surface area is gonna be computed as, well, the side of all the, it's gonna be the area of all the side rectangles put together. So you have the base, which is a square. So that's gonna be a W squared. But then each of the other four sides, right, like this one right here, it's a rectangle, which is gonna be W times H. And there's gonna be four of those things all around the whole thing. So we get four times WH.  But the surface area, we know what it is by the constraint, the surface area we see is supposed to be 75, like so. So we can use this to solve for H. Subtract W squared from both sides. We get 4WH is equal to 75 minus W squared. Divide both sides by 4W. We get H equals 75 minus W squared over 4W. And we're gonna make this substitution in 4H, like so. So that volume becomes W squared times this 75 minus W squared over four times W. You'll notice that one of the W's cancels out right here, like so, in which case then our volume becomes W times, well W over four times 75 minus W squared. So now we have to make a choice. When it comes to the derivative, we could multiply this thing out to calculate the derivative, which would make it a little bit easier, or we could take the derivative right now using the product rule. I'm gonna distribute the W through. You can leave the constant multiple out. That doesn't have much of a consequence on the derivative. So we get 1 4th 75 W minus W cubed. So when we calculate the derivative here, V prime, we're gonna get 1 4th times 75 minus 3W squared. We need to find the critical number, so we're gonna set this thing equal to zero. The 1 4th can be ignored because we can just divide both sides by 1 4th, dividing zero by any non-zero number just gives you zero, no big deal there. So we have 75 minus 3W squared. Add 3W squared to both sides. You get 75 equals 3W squared, like so. Divide both sides by three. You're gonna get W squared equals 25, and then take the square where you get W equals five. So this gives us a critical number, but we have to consider all, not just the critical numbers, but the boundary points as well. So what could the boundaries be, right? For W, well, to one extreme, you could set W equal to zero, but that's gonna be a no-go here because if your width was zero, that would give you a volume, I should mention, of course, of zero. There's also the concern, of course, that the surface area wouldn't be 75 square feet at that moment, but the point is that's gonna minimize things. If we go on the other extreme, like how big can W actually come, turn out to be, that kind of follows from this formula right here, that if you allow W to get all the way up to like the square root of three times five, five times the square root of three, that is the square root of 75, then that would set the height equal to zero, which also would make the volume zero, which again, that's an impossibility because that type of thing wouldn't have any material made out of it, but we should make sure that it's not a boundary point that's included because the boundary could in fact be the solution to the problem. We can't just simply ignore it. So it seems like the candidate for optimization is gonna happen here at five. Five of course is the width. So if we put it into our function, we're gonna end up with one fifth, excuse me, one fourth times five times 75 minus 25, which is five squared. So we wanna simplify this thing of course. So we get one fifth times five. 75 takeaway 25 is going to be 50, like so. And so that's gonna give you 250 over four. Four does go into that thing evenly. And so we end up with, and take that back, two goes into 250 evenly. So you'd end up with 125, excuse me, 125 over two if you want the exact answer or we could write that as 62.5. This would be volume, so the units here would be cubic feet. And so the maximum volume for this box given the constraint on the surface area is gonna be 62.5 cubic feet.


Going on everyone say I'm here with late in sports cards have been one box of Sports card all my act multi-sport personal box edition volume six for Joe H. Good luck here Joe See what we got box number 68 is the J. Dub True RPA 95 and 99 back-to-back J. Dubbs.  Thanks again for the sport as always buddy get him right out to my man


I wear sunblock, I don't drink alcohol, I don't smoke cigarettes, I should be safe, right? Wrong. And the reason is because those 40 trillion human cells have to divide, which means they have to copy paste each other, right? If I gave you a one page document and asked you to copy it on a laptop 10 times, like a paragraph, you would get it probably 100% correct. If I asked you to copy it 40 trillion times, you definitely will screw up a lot. And that's what happens in the human body. Just the copy-pasting function actually causes mistakes. And do you know in the typical human body, every 24 hour, how many DNA mistakes are made? 10,000 DNA errors are made every 24 hours. Let me come back to the question. How come we don't get cancer more often? Because our DNA, our defenses, fix it.


So I am genuinely still recovering from what took place at our house on Sunday night. What happened? An impromptu dance party. I will not play the video because it's a song that would give us a potential strike, but this is, this is, this will give you kind of the vibe that was going on there. Um, yeah. So that, that'll give you the vibe. I don't know if you can see that, but it's Andrani and our friend Valerie and Joanna dancing and Mickey was there. Valerie directed the header monologue I did by the way. Yeah. It was impromptu dance party that began at 10 o'clock and didn't until about one 30. We just nonstop danced around the living room. Andrani put the girls in dresses that they hadn't come dressed in and I'm blaming a brand new spirit that we've enjoyed called Old Raj. Not only is it the most delicious gin I've ever heard, but it produces pretty frickin fantastic nights.  It was. Hey, welcome back to our Stupid Directions of Corbyn. I'm Old Raj and you can follow us on Instagram, Twitter for more juicy content. Thanks to Patreon, follow us through the accounts, subscribe and like button. It was a blast. I am genuinely, we just, all five of us were just choosing songs and go, we did not stop. The windows were all steamed up. We were writing things on the windows had to open the windows, even though it was probably, you know, three degrees Celsius. Heck of an orgy. It was, I'm genuinely, it was 48 hours ago, I'm still recovering. It was glorious. Today we got a, this is kind of a documentary somebody sent me. It's called, say this. Brash Kiholy. And I think it's going over, I know we know about Holy, but this one is actually a documentary. Film the documentary to your, I thought it was going to read this. In the Braj region of India, where the Hindu deity Krishna grew up, the festival celebrated until wrong Panchami, excuse me, and commemoration of the divine love of Radha for Krishna. Holy celebrated as a festival of love. Obviously we know Holy and we've seen many stuff about Holy. We celebrate Holy every year and we've actually had the blessing of celebrating it in Mumbai. Yes. Just before the pandemic exploded. And the night before, I forget what the night before Holy is called, but when they right bonfire and we did that whole thing, we didn't have logs of that. Please go check those out. There are there on the channel. Just look up OSR Holy and you'll find them. But I think this goes over a little different stuff. So cool. Here we go. Wow. Wow. Wow. It's a shot. Many terms that we don't know. Huh. Here's a little do it. Oh, wow. That's a completely different form of clubbing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. I've wanted to do this all year. Wow. He is covered. Kyawa. Shot gets me emotional sickness. Oh. How adorable. The videography is great. Yeah. Oh, they're really wacky. Yeah. Holy does make everything so picturesque. That's for sure. I also love shots in villages and towns where they got the same color blues on every building. Yeah. I think that's in, I think this is in Rajasthan. It's in, did they say? They did. I've forgotten. It might be the blue city, which they used to do for cast, but now it's kind of like a tourist thing. Oh, is that the reason it was cast coloring? That's not such a beautiful. Oh, they reason they've changed it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But nice. That's just lovely. That's cool. Oh, one of those. Chica, Chica, boom, boom. Whoa. Oh yeah, I almost ordered. No, I did. I ordered one last year. It didn't work well. What are those called? Starts with a P, right? Those little, I just like remember, Pichakoli man or something like that. I don't want to know what kind of camera they were using. Seriously. Or if it was just all color correction, which is probably what they did as well. Pichkari. Yeah. Pichkari. I was close. Because when I had that in India, and I had two of my pocket, they call me Pichkari man, which is my superhero name. This is somewhere in Rajasthan. Watch me be wrong. This is just the day that all the women take revenge on the men. Yeah, I like it. Wow. Constant color just coming out of that hose. My goodness. Looks like they're in at least ankle deep water too. Just dumping buckets. I guess don't wear clothes that you that you care about. Next level. Buranga Sampan. Just beating them. I respect their tradition. Great video. Wow. Hats off to Vagabond films. Yeah. For making a fantastic rate, especially like visually. It's like, you know, I'm hoping you submitted this, which I feel like India should do for like documentary. You can make a film that is about holy, but also more like follow a family or something. Right. Kind of like they did with all that breeze and like their drama. Right. But it's about the birds. But then you also get more. Absolutely. But like on holy or Diwali or whatever, 10,000 other festivals they have. And like people would learn a lot and also it probably could be a powerful documentary. Absolutely. Maybe I'll make it, but I don't think I'm qualified to make it because I don't know enough. But yeah, it could be made, you know, it actually would be a beautiful perspective to have it made by someone who isn't India, Indian, and just allow it to be their view of those things, drinking that in. Yeah, but beautiful video. And it's super interesting because obviously we've been doing this for four years now. I think for going on five, I guess, right? We are now entering year, we are entering year five. So we're done. Yeah, we've done four years. And 19, 20, 21, 22. Four years we've celebrated holy. Correct. The first year we kind of just threw one up on the hill with the kids. Second year we were in India. In India. Which is crazy. And then COVID game. COVID game. But I've played holy every year with my family, at least in the backyard. Leland loves it. I need to make sure I have holy I was just going to say, have you ordered your colors yet? Well, actually, if you just go to an Indian grocer, they'll have it. They have it. They have fireworks and stuff for Diwali and any kind of stuff. Not big fireworks, but sparklers and stuff. But I need to make sure I have some of that. But yeah, to learn something that we haven't learned yet about this specific celebration, I love that it just seems like the day of the year that all the women take out their frustration and anger. Oh yeah, 364 days of patriarchy. And now we have our turn. I know that's not what it's actually about. No, it's a joke. It's a joke. It seems funny in that light. I like it. It looks like a... I don't know if I would do it. It seems really intense in a lot of people. My goodness. Well, the totality of it is 40 days long. That is biblical in its perspectives in terms of festivities. Also, you know, and there's not 40 days that goes on in India that another festival doesn't come along. Of course. So you're celebrating two festivals at the same time sometimes? The land of festivals. There's no way there's a 40-day gap between festivals in India. No. I just, I know for a fact that's not the case. Absolutely. But yeah, fantastic documentary. Any of you from this region and have partaken of this celebration? There's no way it's not in Rajasthan. Everything about it felt... Looked Rajasthan, not the part... And the architecture. What the ladies were wearing. But again, the director photography, all the videography was just gorgeous. It looked like it was shot on a red camera with perfect color correction at the end. Yeah, it was probably shot on something like that. Anyways, fantastic little documentary. Shout out to Vagabond Films. Making great content there. Let us know what are the videos we can react to and holy hay.