Hello and welcome to the session. This is Professor Farhad in which we would look at transaction between a parent company and a subsidiary and we look at some intercompany sales and elimination entries. This topic is obviously covered on the CPA exam. This could be a small simulation, could be an exercise in your advanced accounting. Regardless, they're both the same thing. As always, I would like to remind you to connect with me only then. If you haven't done so, subscribe to my YouTube and like and share this recording as well as my other recording. If they help you, it might it might mean they help other people on my website. I do have additional accounting courses if you're an accounting students or if you're studying for your CPA exam. And I strongly suggest you do visit my website if you're a CPA candidate because I can add 10 to 15 points on your CPA exam. Put the exam behind you, focus on your career. So I strongly suggest you check out my website. Now bear in mind, I do not replace your becker, your Roger, your Wiley or your Glyme. That's not what I do. All what I do is I supplement your course. So think about this as extra vitamin, extra preparation. I go into the material a little bit more in depth than the other CPA prep courses. That's how I can help you. Check it out. It's only you can subscribe and cancel any time. So it's worth looking into it. So let's take a look at this example. P company owns 80 percent of the outstanding stock of S company. During 2014, S reported net income of 525,000 and declared no dividend. At the end of the year, S company inventory included 487,500 in unrealized profit on purchases from P company. So they made purchases from P company and they have an unrealized profit in that inventory. Enter company sales for 2014 totaled 2.7 million. The question is, prepare the journal entries for all consolidated financial statement, work paper entries necessary at the end of the year to eliminate the effect of 2014 enter company sales. So it's very important before you prepare the enter company, the eliminating entries between the two units, the parent and the subsidiaries. It's very important to understand how did we get there? In other words, what were the original entries? So let's take a look at it from the parent's perspective as well as the subsidiary. The parent company, they will debit a counter-receivable dash sub because they sold to the sub 2.7 million and some textbook or on some CPA exam, they would say do from, do from, which is the same thing as a receivable. But I'm going to be using the term that you are most likely familiar with, a counter-receivable, but do from is the same. And they will credit sales 2.7 million. That's what the parent company did. They made a sale to the subsidiary. On the subsidiaries, they're going to debit purchases. We're going to assume they're using the periodic inventory method, sorry, the periodic inventory method. And they will credit accounts payable or due to, due to 2.7 million, due to parent, okay, 2.7 million. It doesn't matter. We're going to use the term that we are familiar with, accounts payable. Now the parent company, also they're going to have to record the cost of the sale. And we're going to assume here that they're using perpetual regardless, whether they're using perpetual or periodic, they're going to end up debiting cost of goods sold, $2,112,500 and credit inventory for the same amount. So you're asking, how did you come up with this number? We're going to assume, we're not going to assume anything. We're going to assume, actually we're going to assume, if we have sales of 2.7 million, we're going to assume all the sales is the, we have a profit on it, a 487,500, because that's the profit that's sitting in the sub. Therefore the cost of the price, the cost of the sale, the cost of sales, must have been that amount. So this is how I, this is how I came up with that amount. We're giving the sale, we're giving the profit, therefore the cost is this much. So this is what the parent company also recorded, okay? Now again, here I'm using perpetual, but the net effect, whether it's perpetual, perpetual or periodic, the cost of the sale is this much, and they would reduce inventory by this much. Now, here we go at the end of the year. The first thing we have to do, actually we have to eliminate the intercompany receivable and payable. The first thing we do is we debit this account. We debit accounts payable 2.7 million. We credit account receivable 2.7 million, you know. So you credit this, debit this. So this is gone. So the intercompany receivable and payable is gone. Then we're going to eliminate the sale. We're going to debit sales. We're going to have to debit this account 2.7 million, and we're going to credit purchases. So this is gone, and this is gone. So the sale is gone, and the purchases are gone. We still have one thing to worry about, and that's the profit. You remember, we reported profit of, we have unrealized profit. Yeah, we have unrealized profit of 487,500. Now, how can we eliminate the profit? Well, how do we eliminate the profit? One way to eliminate the profit is increase your cost of goods sold. Therefore, what we're going to do, we're going to debit inventory, the beginning inventory on the income statement. Hold on a second. What does that mean? Think of this as cost of goods sold. Now, why did I do this? Why did I use inventory and not cost of goods sold? Because we're going to assume in the subsidiary, you know, if it's, if you're using, if they're both using perpetual, just you debit cost of goods sold. But here's what's going to happen. Hopefully you remember this. If we have beginning inventory plus purchases minus ending inventory, let me write them again. So I'm going to abbreviate. Bi is beginning inventory. So beginning inventory plus purchases minus ending inventory. This formula gives us cost of goods sold. So let's assume, let's use some numbers. We have beginning inventory of 10. We purchased 15. This is 10 plus 15 equal to 25. And we have ending inventory of five. Our cost of goods sold equal to 20. Now here's what's going to happen. If we add $3 to beginning inventory. So if I add $3 to beginning inventory, now beginning inventory is 13. Purchases is 15 minus five. This is going to give us 28 minus five. It's going to give us cost of goods sold of 23. So notice by increasing inventory on the income statement, beginning inventory by $3, we increased cost by $3. So what I do is under the periodic system, what you do is you debit inventory income statement for this amount. And by doing so, you increase cost of goods sold. By increasing cost of goods sold, you eliminated this intercompany profit. That's one thing. The other thing that happened is when the subsidiary purchased that dose, when the subsidiary purchased 2.7 million, eventually that purchase is counted in inventory. So what happened is this, we eliminated 2,212,500 of inventory and somehow we turned it into 2.7 million of inventory. So we inflated our inventory by the amount of the profit for 87,500. So what do we have to do? We have to reduce our inventory. How do we reduce our inventory? We credit inventory balance sheet for 87,500. So this credit here make the inventory equal to its original amount, which is 2,212,500. And this debit here, to beginning inventory income statement or debit to cost of goods sold, increase cost of goods sold on the income statement which remove the profit. All as well where we are technically back to as if nothing happened because we sold those merchandise to the subsidiary and here we are assuming the subsidiary did not sell any of them. That's why the unrealized profit that we have, it's sitting on our statement. So we had to remove it. So by going through this entry, you get rid of the intercompany receivable and payable, you get rid of the sales and the purchase and you get rid of the profit and you put the inventory back on the books as it's supposed to be. So this is a sample of what I do in terms of lectures. So if you are looking for more resources, especially if you're studying for the CPA exam, I strongly suggest you check out farhatlectures.com, whatever section you are working with, you could find out CPA FAR, if you're taking advanced accounting and you want to have more resources about advanced accounting, you could check out my courses, my courses, accounting courses, I have many courses. If you are studying for the exam, this is a lifetime investment. The CPA exam is maybe a 30 to 40 year investment in your career. Don't short change yourself. My subscription is nominal in the grand scheme of things and anyway, if you don't think it's worth it, guess what? You are risking $30, that's all what you are risking. That's it. Are you willing to risk $30 to find out if you can improve your knowledge and your base accounting knowledge by 10 to 15 points on your CPA exam? I think it's a no brainer deal. Anyhow, good luck, study hard and as always, stay safe.


Welcome back. This is UNFINISHED. We finish UNFINISHED matters. I am your host SK Gitonga. Do not forget to follow me on all social media platforms. Today we are talking about the 15% imposed tax on content creators. Onto that question, do you think the proposed tax is going to slow down the rate of digital content creation? Let me know what you think in the comment section at Y254, hashtag UNFINISHED. Definitely, because it will be something that if you don't have money, you just can't do it really. Even if you do, you'll be earning little from what you're doing. So it will definitely slow the content creation amongst the youth and other people. It will slow down the rate of digital content creation amongst the youth and other people. Let me first say, last month I was content with 6K. I have 6K, I have 15% and I have 6K. I have a lot of staff. I have a lot of rent. If the tax will be imposed and the government uses it to help the content creators, that would be so wise and helpful. But if the tax will be taxed and the other side of the content creators, they see nothing is going on. It's the same old, I think it will not be fair. If the tax is to help the content creators, I think that's very nice. But the government should also consider on how big is the artist. If they go by 15%, I say yes. Because one thing is we still don't have an exact figure for what the content creators should be getting. Or how you're supposed to be getting this cash. So when you still don't have a really stable way of getting your income, how are you going to be able to maintain that taxing? I think it will slow the creation of digital creation. Because content creators are afraid to create content. Because they think, what's the need now? So when you're like hard-working, what are you afraid to create content? Because they are afraid to create content and it's not right for them. So I think the proposed tax is not going to be good for them. It will slow down the content creation. And you know content creation, does the government expect youths to be out there stealing from people? I'm creating content which is actually like trying to employ themselves. So I think it has slowed down. I don't know much about the tax but I would say if there's a threshold, meaning like if there are people below a certain income who are not going to be taxed, I don't think it would affect the advancement of the digital content creation. But if it's everyone who's in digital content creating who's going to be taxed, that's a problem. But if it's after a certain point where you're making this amount of money, you're going to be taxed, okay. But everyone, no, that's a problem. I really don't think it is going to slow it down. What is happening is a few years ago this, the member online, so what we're doing is going to slow it down. And how are we going to slow it down? In such things, we're going to slow it down. What it's going to do is that everybody who is going now to venture into online, will be really careful and know that I'm starting, it's a business, so I should be ready to pay tax. So some of it may slow down, but on the other hand, it's going to give us, it's going to give us content creators when you're not going to be able to. Even if I'm not going to be able to do business, I'm going to be able to do it. And I'm not going to be able to do it. It's not, it's 50-50 from where I sit. No. It's not, it's digital. It's not digital. It's not independent. It's just a meme. Just a little bit of my channel. That's 30 million from the government. 15%? OK, yes. When I'm talking to the government, I'm talking to the government because they're talking to me, I'm talking to the government because they're talking to me. But it's not just me. I'm talking to the tax. If we are not able to take care of the people we are talking to, it would be a waste of money. If we are able to take care of the people we are talking to, we would be able to take two tax. The government will say, what is tax? We support the government of the day. What is tax? Yes. Because now people will see if I show off my money by chasing clout, the government is going to tax them. So they will start hiding what they do. Or even they will do what they are doing but they pretend they are poor. Yet they have money. It's going to slow. Because there are these upcoming content creators, the moment they see they are getting taxed, like these others are getting taxed, but they will be like, how can they be taxed? Yet they are complaining. What about this when they are now, they are coming like, at the time they are going to earn, they will be like, what if we are taxed? How will we benefit? So they will opt for other options rather than being content creators. So it has slowed down very much. I think it has slowed. But later on, if we are going to slow, if we are going to take a camera and already have equipment, or equipment, we will be able to slow. So if we are going to slow, what we are going to do is to slow the content down. So it has slowed. I think as for now, yes, because there are young Kenyans or young content creators who bad-wadjafic at a point where they want to earn as much. Because you see, maybe for YouTube, there are some PM's rates that as a Kenyan, or if you are in Africa, it will be low. But then if you are in the western side of the world, it will be high. So what do you do with that? First, you need to engage youth and content creators about financial knowledge. And then after that, you can impose easy veto because you cannot just wake up one day and say, we are going to attack. The amount of people who want to go through content creation will be low. But when we are going to dance, we have seen TikTok, we have seen Asia, we have seen talk, we have seen the outreach of the people through engaging and all that. Then you will be able to engage. But then with the knowledge, maybe you will be able to give some people advice or not to do with the money, not flaunting it. YouTube, Instagram, you will have an idea. You will be able to jump in. These are the things that youth should be advised. And the tax, you will have an idea. But then as for now, I think, we are supposed to be. Slowing down not really because most content creators, that's all they have. It's not a side hustle. It's their main hustle. So whether you impose a tax or not, guys will still produce content. The thing is, people will fight the tax. People will voice their opinions about it. But it won't stop content creators from making content because that's their daily lives. I don't like content. So I don't like tax. It makes sense. It is because some digital people entered the trend. They jumped on the bandwagon for the sake of it. They just wanted to be seen out there. They have IG channels. They have YouTube channels. But when the taxing comes, I think they'll feel the pinch because maybe they didn't expect it to be as it is. I think it's actually going to slow down the growth of digital creation because some content creators are just starting to think about it. You might also find that most content creators do not have the right facilities to do this. They probably got it at a price. And then on what they're actually going to earn, they're going to be taxed 15%. I feel like it's a bit too much unless the government wanted to intervene and help them with the capital or probably provide them with a forum. Onto our last question. Let me know what you think in the comments section. I don't think so because it's basically for entertainment. I don't think because most of the content creators or some, they get their own resources. For example, a house where they can create the content. They literally have to fend for themselves, I guess. Not like people who work, who have offices, who have. So I think they should not pay tax. That's how people should know what they're going to earn. People should know what they're going to do, what they're going to do. They should think that they're going to be taxed 15%. They're going to be taxed 15%. I think they should pay according to what they earn. And maybe the government should maybe should say let's say up to this point is when you should start paying tax. I mean earlier the upcoming content creators because I know they struggle to get to a point. They should, if there is a good platform for them getting enough cash to do that. If there is what do you call it? It's an example like we have somebody's kind of person. They know at the end of the month I have this. As a content creator you're not sure how your month will go. So before that is made, before they have like a stability on how content creators are supposed to be getting their pay. They should do some consideration before they pass the bill. I think content creators should pay tax in accordance to the facilities the government is offering. Like let's say healthcare such kind of facilities. But facilities according to their own content their own content content to create they shouldn't pay taxes in accordance to that. But with other facilities yes they can. I'm going to go back to my third point. If you make money beyond a certain amount through content creation it's only fair for them to be taxed. So I'd say yes up to a certain income. But below that no I don't think it's fair. They should pay tax. No one is above the law. Days of impunity are over. The same way president is saying he's going to lead from the front by paying taxes. No one is above the law. Yes. Pay taxes for this country. We need roads. We need electricity. We need schools. So if people are being taxed from their payrolls why should you not pay tax? Who are you? You see this celebrity thing has got into us into a situation where there are some people who believe they should be exempted. But I don't think they should. Pay tax the normal way if our officers pay taxes why should you not pay tax? You are making money. Even the Bible says it gives Caesar what belongs to Caesar and remain with the rest. It's all about planning yourself. Be ready for a regime where people will be taxed and they will be able to move. Yes. So they should pay taxes. They should not resist. What they should do if I was maybe if I was advising them they should come together and say if maybe you are starting maybe you're for starting the 15% should be negotiable. But if you're already there your channel has over 400,000 subscribers and you're making money pay us 15%. Give fruit of 15%. The president is going through a lot. Even if you look at him right now you'll see this guy is stressed. Yes. Our debt-sailing is above most of our debts are maturing. So let them pay taxes for those who are starting let there be a negotiation. Let them come together. Let them learn financial literacy even if you make 20 million don't show us. I'm not saying that I'm going to be kicked out. I'm going to be kicked out. I'm going to be kicked out. I'm going to be kicked out. I'm going to be kicked out. I'm going to be kicked out. But it's okay it's nocaseless. No buy time will bother us because we want to start our younger generation reach their goals and start getting big. so, why is that crazy? and cascading. A handsome man, as long as you're generating money on what business you're doing. But the thing that makes people not pay tax, you pay that tax. But that tax is just going to pay the wage bill for the parliamentarians. You know, it would be good, we pay tax and you see what that tax is doing. I've not seen what that tax is doing. You go to hospital, there's no medicine, public schools. They are like children all over, they are lacking amenities. You pay tax and see what that tax is doing. As for now, with the current situation, I think no. Because as I've said, there are people who are living in poverty and there are others who are not. There are people who are living in poverty, there are people who are living in poverty, and there are people who are living in poverty. And after this, there are people who are living in poverty on YouTube. But then if we had this financial knowledge, then maybe the government could tax these content creators. But then, if you want to make money on YouTube, you see that after a month's following in Parliament, they are not doing that, they are just trying to show people that they are making money. But in Parliament, there are people who are living in poverty. And this is the money probably they are showing us. So we really have to engage the youth and see the government come together and they are like watching TV. Because there are people who are living in poverty, and there are people who are living in poverty. So what do you think? Well, if everyone else is paying tax, I think content creators should pay tax, but not 15 per cent. See, not 15 per cent. First of all, we have to check them, and how much to check it. Because not every content creator is earning the same every end of the month. Others are earning different amounts. So it should vary. 15 per cent is like everything but not. So, there are people who are living in poverty. They should because, as I said earlier, it's a job like in the other job. They go out, they make shoots, they get paid promotions, but to see them, they are eating it tax-free. Well, they have a Kenyan, the normal Mananchi is going getting their 15,000, 10,000, and then they are taxed heavily. They should be taxed. Short content creators pay taxes. I have two sides on this. One of them is yes, because as a normal Kenyan who is actually earning, I feel like you should be willing to contribute part of it for development of the country and also to pay off them debts, right? And then secondly, I feel like this is intellectual property. As much as they want to tax us, you shouldn't be paying that much to showcase your talent or show out your creativity, right? We have come to the end of the show. Thank you for watching. I am your host, S.K. Gichonga. Let's meet here same time, same place. See you then.


All right, gang, thanks for sticking around. We're back. Hopefully everybody is refreshed. So real quick, I promise everybody a demo.  And just to get us back to where we were, at some point this will come up. There we go. If you guys will remember, we have two K-native services here. If you guys went through the actual GitHub barrel, and you should be pretty much to this point, and it's worth noting we have two services, right? We just saw the K-native service representation of that. I'm using something called KAML-K. KAML-K, what it does, we'll look at the actual code here in a second so we can see why this is giving us event-boss-like capabilities. KAML-K is going to hook into K-native serving. It'll go create things like the K-native services that we just saw previously. It'll also create things like subscription. We have a few other things sitting here in the same space. I'll go ahead and go over here to something that looks a little bit better. In K-native eventing, you guys will notice this is we're in our application namespace, service-mesh-con. We have a default broker. I'm more of a CLI guy, so we'll look at it this way. Cool. And so we'll notice we have this broker. Let's take a peek at the YAML that actually represents that. And we'll notice a few different things. This is being configured for this particular tenant with a config map and its individual namespace, a talk for another day. But we want to engage in notions of multi-tenancy with K-native eventing. That's when we really start getting some great stuff out of K-native eventing. Cool. A few other things that we'll notice here is, oh, yes. We'll notice here that we're actually a Kafka channel. So when we go look at the resources that we're laying down into this cluster, for instance, the channels we just looked at, we have two channels. And so what our particular demo will do, one K-native service will pop up. It's going to send messages into a K-native channel into this testing DB events channel. Another guy is going to say, hey, I'm subscribed. That was a subscription we just looked at. I'm subscribed to that channel. And I'm going to do some stuff with it, and then I'm going to send it on its way. True kind of enterprise service bus behavior. It's unaware. Our particular implementation is totally unaware of what these channels are. It doesn't know that Kafka is underneath. It doesn't know whether or not it's NAT. It doesn't know whether or not it's in memory channel. The only thing it knows is it's engaging in this PubSub behavior from K-native. That's super cool. What that means is we can engage in some multi-tenancy, i.e. in one namespace we could use Kafka, the next namespace we could use NAT. Maybe we have a tenant that's not very important. They can stay in memory and they don't need to use up our resources. But it also presents on some things that we need to do. We need to have, as mentioned previously, we've got some governance there, right? So we determine what this channel implies for a particular namespace, right?  That's not material to your particular implementation. So let's go over to Eclipse where I like to live, and hopefully this is big enough for everybody. But we'll look at the first guy here. This is something called Apache Camel, and I was just having a discussion with Rahm over there. This is a DSL that attempts to be an idiomatic easy button. So you notice this is idiomatic, right?  Well, this particular guy is going to do is, he's got a timer, right? Typical kind of quartz-y scheduler type of thing, and then he's going to log some stuff out. He's going to set a body real quick. What a body is in Camel is just the thing that we're carrying around from this idiomatic thing to idiomatic thing.  You'll notice this doesn't indicate that it's a Kafka producer, not wiring up a Kafka producer at all. It's just going to go to a Knative channel called testing DB events. Then this guy, Event Bus Transformation Integration, is going to pick that thing up off of the testing DB events channel. He's going to do some, or she is going to do some stuff to it, and then again send it off to another channel, which we'll notice here, right? So literally this thing, our second Knative service is just going to sit on the bus. She's unaware that we're speaking to Kafka. If we were to throw this into another namespace the way we've wired up Knative eventing, it could be in memory, it could be NATs, so on and so forth. Again, it is this core central notion of governance that we've gotten to in Knative eventing. Where we get out of our developers way, we let them do what they want, but we govern what these sources and sinks are. In their actual physical implementation. For us in this particular case, it's Kafka again in other cases, it may be something else. Cool. So we'll notice the event sync integration guy is running. Again, if we just looked at this guy, this is the guy with the timer, and then he emits off to an event. He's running, but he's already done all this stuff. So what I'm going to do, instead of forcing you guys to sit through like a build and stuff like that, I'm just going to delete this pot. Once I am able to type again, and we'll let that guy start deleting. Let's go over here. We'll do a gap pods and see what's going on. That guy we just noticed that was scaled to zero is now coming up. If we go interrogate this guy's logs to see what's going on here, we'll notice that it's taking in messages off the event bus, and assuming some stuff, it received a service message, service mesh, welcome to Cloud Native Integration, and then it's saying, oh yeah, by the way, it's going to add some more stuff in, and then we're going to go off to another Knative channel. What these are physically underneath the cover are actual Kafka topics. Those Kafka topics could be, we could simply as somebody else in another namespace in other one of our applications, can now just pick up off of that particular Kafka topic. If we lose our runtime, so on and so forth. If we lose Kafka, hopefully we're replicating over to another data center or potentially another Cloud. This allows us to get those Cloud Native runtime capabilities, also while injecting governance into the situation. Also, remember the white paper we were discussing previously, we're not looking to get into the way of developers, we want them to be able to do their stuff, we want them to be able to do it quickly. Providing a service bus implementation that is decoupled to these kinds of monolithic notions that are old ESBs used to be, right? Or old ESBs used to have service component assembly, you had to use a type of message, message type, it had to do the following things. You had to adhere to a canonical schema, we get all those things, but still can allow you to be Kafka message, we can allow you to be MQP, we can allow you to be NAT, we can allow you to do a lot more than that. So let's go check out what this graph looks like in Kiala, and you guys will notice it's pretty for both. One of the reasons we went through our schematics previously, if I went over here and try to point out all these points to you guys, it'd be pretty rough. We can notice where some of our traffic is going through, here in Kiala, and the different ways that it's heading. Let's go over to Yeager and see what's going on here. Go. All right. We'll look at this individual service. Oops, which one is it? Here, we'll just look at this guy. All right. We'll look at one of our dispatchers, right? We've wired up into the match. We'll notice a few different things going on. We have spans here. We can see some of the things that we were talking about previously, right? Here, the activator calls event bus transformation, right? Here, our event sync integration goes off to another dispatcher, so on and so forth. These things, because these things are all in the mesh, they can talk to each other, and I didn't have to do any further configuration. Remember, generally speaking, in the past, we had loads of bespoke ways of handling this. Things had to shake hands. Things would have to shake hands differently, so on and so forth. So that was the demo. It takes actually quite a while to get there. The upside is, if you guys go through the GitHub URL, the upside to that is these are things we generally speaking wouldn't change a lot, right? We're probably not going to significantly change the innards of our Knative serving and Knative eventing implementations, so on and so forth. We may extend them, right? You'll see how we go about that. If you guys go to the GitHub URL, we wire ourselves up for different namespaces a little bit differently there. You'll see it in the resources there. So that demo was that attempting to get those Cloud-native architectural capabilities via a set of Knative services to talk over the PubSub abstraction that constitutes our Cloud-native event bus. So I promise you guys some advanced topics. Because if you guys will notice, we didn't really do too much crazy, right? We do wire up everything for some things that need to be wired up for sidecars, right? We inject those. We wash those handshakes happen. I didn't have to do a lot to get there. I just had to set up my platform, and then developers can just do their thing without having to worry about all of this. But we do have some other things that we probably want to get to, right? One of those things is external authorization. Right now, if we think about what it is that was providing a JOT or some means of authentication and authorization over the mesh, what we had are these things that are, we have a dispatcher, we have a controller, and we can wire it up a little bit differently to go from namespace to namespace on the dispatcher. But generally speaking, these things are global across all of our namespaces, right? So the JOT that they're representing isn't necessary is just from that same namespace, is just from that same namespace. Generally speaking, right? We can provide some bespoke authentication and inevitably authorization by whatever our event source is, sure. But we don't have a really great way to say, hey, this dispatcher should be calling a Knative service outside of that JOT or this dispatcher should be talking to an event source outside of that JOT that's driven by a service account. That probably doesn't work for us, right? Like, I probably just don't have one God identity that talks to Kafka. I don't have one God identity that talks to my myriad services. I need finer-grained authorization than that. And generally speaking, I've already, in the majority of enterprises, I've already figured this out. My organization already has these things, right? We've spent probably the last 20, 30 years getting a handle on what fine-grained control means in our enterprise, right? I need to probably hook into something external, right? And so what we really would like to do, what we probably want to do as we're moving passes is to leverage SEO for external authorization and then say, hey, in this particular case, IMC channel dispatcher in the namespace Knative eventing or in this case, IMC channel dispatcher, let's say I've decided to, there's a way in Knative eventing where I can make sure that my dispatchers are in individual namespaces. Hey, Knative eventing, you're actually going to be this guy. You're going to be testing at secure.SEO.IO and I can inject more fine-grained authentication and identity this way via SEO. This allows me to now get back to my fine-grained RBAC that I have in things like a Kafka broker or NETs or whatever that thing is that I'm communicating with that ultimately constitutes the events store on my event bus. Oh yeah, and I've already got that stuff. I don't want to redo things. Remember one of the things we were talking about with governance is we don't want 30 of these things flapping all over the place, right? We want to centralize these notions of authorization, authentication, we want technical consistency across our approaches, right? I don't want to say, hey, in this case, I do something wildly different because I don't have, because hey, the same Jot from the same service account doesn't work all the time for all the authorization I need. All right. So I had one more thing, but I think we'll leave it there. I haven't stopped for questions. We've got about 10 minutes I think, Nicolette 10 minutes. Yeah, sweet. So we've got about 10 minutes. We can call it if you guys want. I would recommend this, please. Yeah. Please go to that GitHub URL and file GitHub issues. If you guys have any questions, you think we did something wrong, you're like, hey dude, whiskey tango foxtrot, like why isn't this working for me, right? Remember, we don't have to use OpenShift, we don't have to use Mystera, we don't have to use OpenShift serverless, and we don't have to use Camelcat. So what a great GitHub issue might be, hey, I'm using something else, can you show me how to do that? We'll totally get to you, don't worry about it at all. If you guys want, you can ask all your questions there. It'll be preserved for better or worse in the perpetuity. Or guys, more than welcome to hang out for as long as everybody wants. Well, at some point, we'll probably have to take it to the hall, but more than willing to hang out and talk some shop if anybody wants. Mr. Murphy, specifically the autoscaler? Well, so it's like Knative serving and Knative eventing out of the box, all depending on your operator implementation or just show is not going to handshake securely, right? We don't have MTLS, we don't have a means of governing who and what those identities are, right? Outside of, again, the basic job that's provided by a service account, right?  This job isn't able to do this, right? And that probably we would get something unauthorized at that point. However, we would suggest that that's really not enough, right? We want one to not have 12 different ways of doing this, right? We want to have one way of protecting of engaging in mutual TLS with our Knative services, right? So from an autoscaler perspective, you're absolutely right. We're not providing any extra master tricks, we're not saying, hey, don't do what you normally do, go over to SEO and collect some stuff that is sitting in elastic search or wherever we decided to store that data, right? However, it provides us one consistent cross-hour organization way of making that MTLS handshake, and then two, I had a second point. Yeah. So at minimum, it provides us that initial means of not having 20 different bespoke authorization. But yeah, it'd be cool if it did some other stuff. In fact, if we could probably spend the rest of the day talking about some stuff I'd like to see in Knative Eventing specifically around SEO. Yeah. You could replace your HPA or KPA autoscaler, right? There's nothing in Knative serving or Knative Eventing that says thou shalt use the out-of-the-box HPA and KPA stuff. So that's maybe how I would, if I was to say, hey, I would like some other sorts of metrics, I need something richer than let's say concurrency, right? Or whatever I have wired up an HPA, CPU or something like that to scale up and down. Yeah. I would probably hook into something that provides that. So I would imagine much in the way, so that could be something that interrogates SEO metrics. I would imagine whatever it is that you took, it sounds like you have something in mind. I would imagine you could probably plug that thing into Knative serving, and that is going to be the thing that's bringing things up and down. So yeah, I mean, I'm unfamiliar with an appliance that maybe gets us a little bit more fine-grained metrics than CPU, concurrency, so on and so forth. But I could certainly see, all depending on the use case and what we were after, I think that's a very viable thing to do. It should work out of the boxish, I'm guessing, ish. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.  So SEO being a classic example, we literally went back to the monologue. So yeah, I mean, them deciding, hey, we're not going to lay out this big huge SEO system. You're just going to have this little plain old Envoy proxy that's going to answer things, is I think an attempt to address that. It also had Tecton built into it, so on and so forth, its own build system back in the day. So Knative has gone through a few changes. That I think are mostly good. Some of the C coupling, the fact that I don't have to use SEO, or I don't have to use courier, I could go use glue, or I could use any number of different surface mass distributions, I think is a good thing. The idea that I'm not forced to use SEO per se, I think is a good thing. Knative of Vening isn't there yet though. You will notice from our CRs previously that we were looking at Knative of the servings, like oh yeah, just enable SEO. Yay, MTLS enabled, sweet. Knative of Vening we actually have to go a little bit farther with which we'll notice in the CR that I listed, we have a lot more stuff injected. Yeah, so let's see. So one of the things that we're solving here is we've changed our paradigm and we're noticing a significant architectural shift. That implies that we can't just say, hey, I used to have a web service here, I'll just throw it over the fence and it's over there, cloud native. In fact, we would make the case rather laboriously, if you go click on a link that's in the slide deck. We make the case that that's not even kind of enough to get to a cloud native architecture. We need a lot more. So one of the things that we, so that demo in and of itself attempts to address like the actual thing that it's doing, the PubSub activity over an HTTP-based control plane is an attempt to address that. Now, we have a need and that is ingress into that HTTP control plan. So we can choose something that's not very sophisticated, that doesn't really set us up for a complex enterprise use cases later. I can't, well, that's not quite true. I probably don't have great hooks to use an open policy agent in just career. I don't have great, I could do some Envoy filters and stuff like that, but now I'm into the innards and guts of Envoy, as opposed to using semantically meaningful constructs from Istia, that I can then extend out into destination policies, various authorization policies like we saw at the end there, so on and so forth. So that's the problem we're attempting to solve for. If you don't really care about your ingress and what's happening between these components, don't need Istia, just roll out with career, we're good to go, we've got something that's going to serve up our Canadian services. If you don't want serverless, by that I mean if you don't, the scale to zero thing is a, shouldn't be saying this on camera, it's a myth. Our use cases almost will never scale to zero, but we do want them to handle burst C behavior, and that is where K-native serving becomes quite handy. As Eric mentioned, there's certainly other ways to do that. We have HPA autoscalers that come right out of the box and many of our Kubernetes sister house, but we don't have a central, technically consistent means of doing that for just about everything. I've got one maybe, more question I can take as long as it's very quick, or we can go out into the hallway if you guys want to chat more, are you up right now? Silence is golden, thank you everybody. I hope you guys got something out of that, I'm going to be around. So if you guys want to chat in the hallway, probably have to let these guys go. But we just go chat in the hallway if you guys want, otherwise, thanks guys. I hope you guys enjoy the rest of the conference.


The radical, fundamental principles of freedom, rational self-interest, and individual rights. This is The Iran Brookshow. All right, everybody. Welcome to Iran Brookshow on this Monday, May 29th, Memorial Day. So I thought we'd talk a little bit about Memorial Day, what it means, its significance. I think a proper attitude towards it. So that would be our topic for today. I'm open for questions on this issue, on any topic, whatever you guys want to talk about. I am here. Super Chat is open. We have a goal. And yeah, take advantage of it. Thanks. Let me see. I want to remind you of our two sponsors, ExpressVPN.com. You can use a VPN. You can get a VPN. You can get a special deal if you do ExpressVPN.com slash Iran. You can get, I think, an extra three months free by using that link. And you're also going to support The Iran Brookshow when you do that. I get a small percentage, a small dollar fee for every time somebody signs up using it. And then I want to remind you of Fountainhead Casts. This is at the Fountainhead Gypsotec. Gypsoteca. Gypsoteca. The Justin Kandal has going. He has now, it has an online checkout is now available. So you can use a credit card or Stripe or PayPal to pay. The website includes a variety of different casts of classical sculptures. Beautiful stuff. If you want to follow my advice and make your environment in which you live, make your space in which you live. Beautiful. Fountainhead Cast is a good place to start on that mission or to continue on that mission if you've already started. So you can find it at fountainheadcasts.com now with free shipping on orders of over $100. If you're in the 48 States and lower 48 and online checkout using PayPal. All right, everybody. Or Stripe, PayPal or Stripe. All right, so Memorial Day. Which is today. It is the last Monday of May. Memorial Day is kind of a strange holiday. Yeah, a strange holiday for me anyway. I come from Israel where Memorial Day is something very, very different. Memorial Day in Israel is a day in which people really commemorate the lives lost in Israel's wars, the soldiers who have died defending the country. It's a solemn day. It's a sad day. The music on the radio is sad. The music, they make sure that on TV everything is kind of appropriately solemn. They have ceremonies all over the country. They have a siren that goes off, I think at least once. The entire country, the cars stop in the middle of the road and people get out and stand out of respect for the soldiers that have fallen for a minute. It's got this reverence attitude towards the fallen and towards what people call their sacrifice. We'll talk about that in a little bit. And so coming to the United States, and in the United States, what's the thing that jumps at you when you think about Memorial Day?  It's the beginning of summer really, the last day of spring maybe, and it's usually the weather's great and people go outdoors and everybody's having a good time. And yes, there's some ceremonies and some, you know, reflaying and flowers at some of the cemeteries, but generally it's a pretty joyous, boisterous, kind of happy time that most people, and it's how most people experience Memorial Day. Now, I think there are a lot of reasons for this, and some of them good, and basically most of them good, but there are a number of reasons for this. First is that Israel is a conscription military, so everybody serves in the military. And Israel is also a tiny little country, it's very, very small. And it fights wars against enemies that are far bigger than it.  Everybody has a family member or a friend or a neighbor who has died in military action in Israel. At least that was the case, I'd say, 20 years ago. Maybe things are a little different today given the fact that Israel hasn't really fought a full-out war since, you know, arguably 73, maybe 80, 83, 82, 83. Everything else has been relatively small operations. So, you know, this idea of remembering those who have fallen in wars is something that most Israelis take very personally because it's something that affects most Israelis quite personally. Whereas with America, America particularly today has a small volunteer army. It is not conscript, it's very small. The army is relatively small relative to the population. The number of casualties that America typically suffers in wars is relatively small because of how strong the U.S. military is and how overpowering the U.S. military is. So that most of the casualties on the other side, not on the side of the U.S. So that most Americans seem far removed from kind of what soldiers actually do, far removed from the death among soldiers. They're not going to have family members likely. Most Americans have never suffered as a consequence of war, a direct death. They like to watch action movies in which people, you know, kill and get killed, but in terms of actually being personal, it's personal for a lot of families, but not for a majority of Americans. It's also true that arguably the United States has not really fought an existential war, maybe since the war of 1812. The United States mostly has fought wars far away from the shores, far away from the United States. Therefore, the existential nature of war, they don't get a sense that the fighting is necessary for their own survival. Israel doesn't have that luxury. The war is always within an hour's drive of where you live. The battlefield is right next door. And again, almost everybody has, at least everybody, not almost everybody. Everybody has a family member who's been in a war, and almost everybody has a family member who's been killed or wounded in a war. So for Americans, Memorial Day is a time not so much to mourn the death of those who died in combat. It's to some extent, and this is the positive respect of this, it's to celebrate what they achieved. And what those in combat have achieved is freedom for those of us still alive. What they have achieved is freedom and security and safety and prosperity that comes with that freedom and security for everybody who's still alive. And that is something worth celebrating. That is something worth having a barbecue of. That is something worth, you know, if you actually search on Google, let me do it right now, let's go to Google and put Memorial Day. And we'll do it in Google News. So we'll look for the news that relates to Google Day. So we'll go to News, News tab, right? Well, it's different than what it was earlier today. But earlier today, the number one site that came up when I searched Memorial Day was Memorial Day, let's see, where is it? Yeah, these are the best Memorial Day sales this year. The best Amazon Memorial Day sales you don't want to miss. So what you have is Memorial Day in America is a day to celebrate, to have a good time. It's a day to go shopping. But you can also spin this positively. I mean, interpret this positively. It's a day to, you know, embrace and commemorate the American way of life that is made ultimately possible by the fighting, by the willingness of some to go on a fight for freedom and fight for America and fight for this country. And some, as a consequence of that fighting, die, lose their lives. Yeah, it's not a sacrifice. We'll get to that. Or at least it doesn't have to be a sacrifice for some people it is a sacrifice, but it doesn't have to be a sacrifice. So I kind of like the way America does it because it's focused on the positive. It's focused on those who remain alive. It's focused on, in a sense, kind of the freedom and the pursuit of happiness that so defines the American spirit. We can go shopping in peace. We can go and have our barbecues with our family in peace. We can go have a good time in peace. So I kind of like the way Americans celebrate memorial day. So for me, it's a mixture.  I like to celebrate that fact that we've got a day off and do something fun and so on and enjoy the long weekend. But it is a day of remembrance and I view it as a day of remembrance of a few things. First, of how great life is in America, in spite of all the problems, in spite of all the complaints, in spite of hating the left, in spite of woke, in spite of trans, in spite of all the things, in spite of the stupid budget deal and the politicians out of control, in spite of everything that is going on.  And one's ability, in spite of all the problems that exist out there to go and have a barbecue and have a good time, eat well, go shopping, enjoy kind of the prosperity and the wealth and the unbelievable variety of goods that exist in the world. You know, that is truly amazing and spectacular and fun and that should be remembered in Memorial Day. But then there is the other dimension of this doesn't, you know, this liberty, this freedom requires vigilance. And sometimes, sometimes requires sending kids into battle, sending kids to fight for this freedom. But here there's a real, you know, beyond, beyond, you know, this, in addition to remembering those young soldiers who died for freedom, we'll get to that in a minute, I can't avoid and I can't prevent myself from thinking and it came to me right now of all the kids and all the soldiers and all the military personnel in American history that have died for nothing or for worse for nothing, have died for the stupid egos of politicians, have died for the strategic mistakes made by their generals and their political class, have died for altruistic causes that have nothing to do with American freedom and American liberty. I mean, how many wars has America fought where it was actually necessary for America to fight? How many men have died to defend, actually defend America, its values, its, its way of life and actually defend America from being destroyed? Sadly, probably less than 50%. I mean, you've got the war of independence, obviously, you've got the war of 1810 where the British basically invaded. You've got the civil war, which I think was a necessary war. And then what? World War I? World War I is one of the dumbest wars in human history and with no reason for the United States to enter, no reason for the United States to lose tens of thousands of men. World War I is a war that required the United States participation. Indeed, it's not clear to me that if the United States had not entered World War I, if we would have even had a World War II, history would have been completely different. MHA08 says, didn't the U.S. start the war of 1812? You know, maybe, maybe I'm wrong about that. It's quite possible that we did start that war. Question is, was it justified or not? But I'm gonna, I'm gonna claim ignorance and stop using that as an example because I'm not sure. But I do know World War I was not a war the United States should have entered, not a war that required the United States to participate in. And that U.S. participation ultimately, while it, quote, won the war, ultimately led to what? World War II is probably a war we had to enter. Certainly once we, once we attacked at Pearl Harbor, whether Pearl Harbor could have been avoided, I'll leave that to another, another discussion, another day and for historians to speculate. But yes, World War II is a war that we, it seems, had to participate in. We were attacked, American soil was attacked, American troops were killed. And there it ends pretty much, I mean, for the most part. Right? Korea, why Americans had to be in Korea?  Vietnam? Why Americans had to be there? A failed war of the French?  No reason. And then to this day, why 7,000 American kids, 7,000 primarily sons, some daughters of American parents had to die in Iraq and Afghanistan is beyond me. After all, we're still in Iraq. And we only left Afghanistan last year in a horrific fashion, having lost. I mean, generally, wars we've lost were not wars we should have entered. So America has not fought that many wars that were justified, that were just wars, that were wars that required us to send in the military. And memorial is always a time for me to remember that fact. The evil of our political class, our intellectual class, our foreign policy establishment, the Kissinger's of the world, who will send kids into battle for, I don't know, some geopolitical calculation. And our kids pay the price, not just the ones who died, but the ones who maimed. So it is truly sad that so many have died for so little, for so little. But really, Memorial Day is a day to dwell more on those who have actually fought to preserve American freedom and to preserve American liberty. And those have gone into battle under orders from our politicians believing whether true or not that they were there to fight to protect American lives, to protect American property, to protect American interests, whether that landed up to be true or not. I don't think it's on the soldiers themselves, but on their bosses, whether in the military and in the civilian. So they are the ones we should primarily focus on during Memorial Day. And I know this word sacrifice is the word that easily rolls off the tongue. It's easy to attribute to it. It's something that the culture embraces and loves because sacrifice is the ultimate most noble thing one can do. Christianity and altruism have taught us. Ultimately, the symbol of sacrifice Jesus on a cross is the ultimate in virtue, the ultimate in goodness. And yet I reject that idea of sacrifice and the idea of sacrifice is noble. The young kids who die in order to protect the country, they don't go into battle wanting to die. They don't go into battle expecting to die. They go into battle willing to risk their lives. Why? Because they realize that in order to live, in order to be successful, in order to prosper and flourish, some people, and they as volunteers have chosen to be those people, some people are going to have to fight the battles. Some people are going to have to take the risks. Some people are going to engage in physical activity, physical warfare in order to preserve liberty and freedom. It is not a sacrifice. It is an investment. It is an essential activity for the preservation of their lives, their families' lives, their friends' lives. And indeed, one of the reasons I am so adamant about the virtue of a volunteer army is that you should want to do this, be willing to do it, not view it the risk taking as a sacrifice. The US military, as Jennifer points out, does not have kamikaze pilots. They don't have suicide squads. They join in order to fight for something that they believe in for an important value, for an essential value to their life, for the love they have, for the people close to them, for the love they have, for the liberty and freedom that those people have. Now granted, not everybody joins for those reasons. Some people do join for the sacrifice. Some people do join for blood and soil, for the state, for the nation, for irrational reasons. There's always going to be irrational people. And there's probably a lot of irrational people in the military today, given the percentage of irrational people in the culture more broadly. But the reality is, or let me put it this way, when I talk about the military, I talk about the best within. I'm talking about what's possible and what's potential. And if you listen to soldiers when they're interviewed about why they will need to fight, about why they're there, like after 9-11, the answer is almost never some abstract generality or some sense of duty. Almost always it's so, my family can be safe. So the people I love do not have to fear, I don't know, terrorism, Nazis, communists, whatever. It's always a self-interested reason. It's for my buddies. And in the trenches, in the battlefield, the reasons soldiers act the way they do is because of their connection to their friends, with them in the unit. It's why camaraderie within a team, within a military team is so important. Their friendship is important to one another. They're willing to risk their lives for one another. Not out of a sense of altruism, but out of a sense of devotion, out of a sense of love. And love is a very different motivator than duty. Love is a very different motivator than irrational respect for the Fatherland. So I think most American soldiers, because the volunteers, and because they've grown up in America, are self-interested. I don't think they're sacrificing. I think they're doing what they think is right, and some of them in doing so and in taking those risks will die. I thank them for taking on that risk. I appreciate the risk they're taking on because I am a beneficiary of it. But that doesn't mean they're sacrificing to me any more than I appreciate the risks that entrepreneurs make, or appreciate the risks that lots of people make in the world out there that I benefit from indirectly. I don't owe them other than I owe them respect, the respect that they all do. So in spite of my inclination to say, yeah, go and celebrate America. Go and celebrate the freedom and liberty that you have. I do think it's important in this day to stop and remember that this freedom is, it does cost, it doesn't come free. There is a price to pay. Pacifists are not free. Anarchism is not liberty. We need a government and we need a military and we need people willing to fight in that military in order to preserve our freedom and liberty. And we need to stop a moment to think about the young kids who put their lives on the line. Young kids in the military today who would be called to put their lives on the line. And I can't resist saying that we also need to think about. We also need to really embrace the idea that unfortunately they are likely to be putting their lives on the line for a bad cause, for unnecessary wars, and for rules of engagement that don't value their lives. So I find myself whenever I get into this kind of discussion, I find myself getting angry and you should get angry. I find myself getting angry for those kids. The 7,000 kids who died in Afghanistan and Iraq.  I get angry at what I see as the future prospects of our government egging on other countries towards war. And at the same time, not doing what is necessary, I think, to make sure that whatever wars are fought in the future, America wins quickly, wins handily while protecting the lives of American soldiers as much as possible. It scares me and horrifies me that our military is becoming more altruistic, not less. More woke, not less. Less understanding of the values of liberty and freedom that they are going to be fighting for. And more willing to put out, again, our troops, our kids in danger for no good reason. Did we learn anything from Korea? No. We did Vietnam. Did we learn anything from Vietnam? No. We then went into Afghanistan and Iraq and played games. Have we learned anything from Afghanistan and Iraq? No. No. I mean, the writers learned nothing. No. Complete isolation. Let's get out of the world. The left, funnily enough, seems eager to engage in more wars. And both sides seem eager to poke China and try to get them, try to get a war going with them. Instead of establishing a clear principle for policy. Okay, so I am split between celebrating the American life, sad for the people who had to die in order to preserve it, and angry at the politicians, at our intellectuals, for creating situations in which people die that are clearly unnecessary. In almost every one of these conflicts, a proper principle for policy would have prevented any need for any of these kids to go into warfare and to be killed. So celebrate, respect, and anger all together. All right, that's my spiel for today. Short, I know, but that's good, I guess. I am open to questions. Questions about this topic, questions about anything. We do have a goal that it would be lovely and wonderful if we could actually make. And I know this is the kind of topic that doesn't get a lot of live views, or maybe views at all. We'll see. You know, it's not attacking anybody. It's not super going after woke political correct. It's not dealing with an issue that daily wire deals with like trans or anything like that. But it is Memorial Day today, and it would seem a little weird not to talk about Memorial Day. But let's, in that context, let's take Liam's question, which will get us into a controversial issue. And I can rant a little bit about one of my favorite intellectuals to rant about. Matt Walsh just did a Memorial Day show on doctors assisted suicide legislation in Canada, making the case that the left is being eugenics back. He views the left as using euthanasia to solve the homeless crisis and entitlement program crisis.  You know, the irrationality of this guy is unbelievable, unbelievable. And the arrogance that he has to think that he knows what's better for people, that he knows who should live and who should die, that he should make that decision, rather than the people themselves is disgusting. I celebrate the euthanasia legalization in Canada and wish we had it in the United States. As somebody who's getting on in years, I dread the idea of going old, let's say with dementia, of going old without capacities to live a decent life. I would love to have the option to go to a doctor and get a little pill that I can take before I go to sleep and never wake up again. And why? And how? Is it any of Matt Walsh's business to force me not to be able to do that? To force doctors not to be able to prescribe such a pill to me?  He doesn't believe that I own my life. He doesn't believe that you own your life. Your life is God's. Your life is the community. Your life is societies. Your life is not yours. So you have no right to decide when to end it? Any more that you had a right to decide how to live it? This is collectivism at its ugliest, at its worst from Matt Walsh. Of course, your life belongs to God. God gets to decide when you go. You don't get to decide it. I mean, Shahzad's got it right. I could mix the pill with my wine. Absolutely. I mean, that's the way to go. The way to go is decide when to go and make it happen. If you're old and falling apart, if your life is yours, then you have the right to decide how and when to end it. And why would a doctor deny you the ability to do that? Why would a doctor deny you? Why would a pharmacist deny you a pill that could end it? Whether you're terminally ill, whether you're falling apart or even if you're, you know, just had enough for whatever reason. How is it anybody else's business? We're not morally obligated to choose to live. Morality cannot tell you whether to live or not. Morality starts. Morality begins once you choose to live. Before that, there's no morality. Before you make that choice, there's no morality because morality is there to teach you how to live. And when life cannot be lived with a capital L, when life is no longer worth living with a capital L, then it can be completely irrational to end it. But even if it's irrational, it's none of anybody's business. It's your life. It's your body. It's you, your soul. Some philosophers say that life is intrinsically valuable. They're wrong. And certainly, religionists like Matt Wallace say life is intrinsically valuable. But objectivism rejects the whole idea of intrinsic value. There is no such thing as value in and of itself. For every value, Rand teaches us, you must ask, for whom and for what? Who values it? And they value it for what purpose? Otherwise, it is not a value. So Matt Wallace's views on assisted suicide are horrific, awful. And this is typical of the right that wants to control you. That wants to dictate to you your life and death decisions. It fits perfectly in the anti-abortion, you know. Life is intrinsic because life belongs to God, not belong to you. So, yeah, that's what I think of. And to do it on Memorial Day is particularly, particularly disgusting. All right. We are way off target. So $20 questions from now on, please. Of course, you can use the stickers to support the show like Stephen just did and Catherine did earlier and anonymous user did and Ragnar. Thank you, Ragnar of the Desert and another anonymous user. So, yeah, we've got a number of people using stickers, stickers you can use for any amount of questions. Please make questions $20 or more. Otherwise, we're going to be stuck at these low numbers. Not even going to make the Morning Show $250. That would be kind of sad. All right. Let's see. Michael asks, altruism and heroism often go together in people's minds. It's amazing how bearable life is given the degree to which altruism is buried in people's souls. Yes, altruism and heroism do go together. And, you know, there's no question that some heroes, you know, that we perceive that save the day do it out of some sense of altruism or some sense of collectivism. I find that sad that that is their motivation. Real heroes, the heroes that I admire do it out of a sense of justice. They do it because they have their, you know, strong belief in liberty that liberty and freedom are valued to them. They do it from a sense of self-esteem. They couldn't live with themselves if they didn't fight for what was right, what was good, what was just, for what was consistent with their own lives and consistent with the lives of their family, of their parents, of their family parents, of their friends and family and the people they love. So, you know, I think being, you know, fighting, relating heroism to self-interest is really, really important. And I think captures would capture the imagination and change maybe people's perspective on kind of what it, what, what heroism is. And we need to divorce it, separate it completely from the idea of sacrifice. And I think you do that, you do that through this idea of showing that it is self-interested and showing that it's connected to self-interest. Thank you, Michael. Richard asks, thank you guys for the $20 questions. This morning you said that NVIDIA is a service company because it does not manufacture its processes. I think it is an intellectual property company selling its processes and designs. What do you think? Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right. But of course, and it doesn't sell its designs. It's some contracts with somebody else to actually physically make the chip. Then it gets the chips and sells them directly to companies that use them or puts them into their own boards and their own machines. So, what I was trying to make the argument of is not that NVIDIA is a service company in traditional sense, but to make the point that, you know, we have a lot of these discussions about economics that happen in our culture where you hear things like, oh, the United States doesn't produce anything anymore. And China makes all the stuff that we use. And I know America is just, all America does is the service industries. They're just involved in service. And my point is that technically, there is, NVIDIA is a service company because the world is defined by service and production. So, when people say, oh, the United States is a service economy, think NVIDIA, think intellectual property, think design, think software writing, think design of manufacturing, just not doing the actual work of manufacturing. So, my point is to try to chip away at the notion that services are somehow inferior. Indeed, services are superior, profit margins and they're much more labors of the mind and so on. And the beauty of the TSMC business model, the Taiwan Semiconductor Company business model is that they figured this out. And what they understood is that if they concentrated their energy, they concentrated their expertise on manufacturing, they could become the best in the world and they could then outsource that to all these service companies that design chips, that build boards, that build applications, that build these other things. And they could become the central manufacturing hub for all these places. And America doesn't need manufacturing jobs.  Who needs the manufacturing? What you need is value added productivity. And I would argue that NVIDIA provides massive value added productivity through its intellectual property, through its innovation, through its brains. And yeah, somebody manufactures it for it, somebody who's specialized in manufacturing, they manufacture it. Who cares how many people work in manufacturing? People use to work in farming. Very few people work in farming today, less than 1%. Detroit doesn't care about manufacturing. Detroit wasn't ruined by the loss of manufacturing jobs. Detroit was ruined by progressive leftist policing policies that created crime. But the children of the auto workers that were losing their jobs, moved to Silicon Valley and became programmers. There's no net losses here. The economy doesn't lose when we become more efficient. The economy doesn't lose when we become more wealth creating. I mean, it's a travesty that the United States makes any automobiles. I mean, the only reason the United States today makes automobiles is because the government has bailed out the American auto industry over and over and over and over again. We shouldn't be making automobiles. We don't make very good ones. Other people make them better and cheaper. So why are we making them? We certainly shouldn't be making them at Detroit given unions and labor laws in Michigan. If we're going to make automobiles, we should be making them where others are making automobiles, in places like Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, with unionized labor and labor laws that are a lot friendlier to business and job creation. So there's no intrinsic value in manufacturing jobs. People who lose their manufacturing jobs are just going to have to get retrained and do something else. Anyway, that was my point. My point was to contrast, to make the case that service jobs was not McDonald's. Service jobs was Apple, Cisco, Amazon, well, Amazon throughout, NVIDIA. Those are service jobs. The high value, a high margin, lots of brainpower kind of jobs. Apollo Zeus, thanks for the support. All right, friend Harper, do you get a lot of applause after the live shows are over just curious? No, very few. Once in a while I'll get one or two, but very few actually. So in terms of direct support for the show, for the specific videos, it almost all comes 99% of it comes from the live chat. Of course I get the multi-contributions. That's bigger than the super chat, although super chat is growing to where it's almost the same. But it's the multi-contributions that really keep the Iran book show going. Plus the super chat. So when I see us not meeting targets and not reaching our goals in the super chat, that always is worrisome. Because it's how we fund what we do. All right, Shahzabat says, what would life be like today if I make a last revolutionary war? I'm reminded of the show Firefly in which their revolution failed. You know, it's, I don't know, it's very hard to tell. Partially because, you know, the UK, Britain was on a good path towards greater liberty and freedom. If the America would have lost a revolutionary war, certainly there's a chance at least that slavery would have been eliminated in America even sooner, because the British did. But of course the model of America became very, very important to many of these countries. The model of America I think sustained kind of liberty and freedom throughout Europe and throughout the United States and kind of the world. So, you know, you can't just look at the sequels events that take one event out. They all impacted each other. Would slavery have been eliminated in Britain if there hadn't been a revolutionary war in which the Americans won? It's very, very, very hard to tell. You know, but the trajectory at that point was positive. That is, the trajectory was still an enlightenment trajectory. The trajectory was still towards an industrial revolution. That trajectory was being sustained not just in the United States, but also in Great Britain. So, would there be a French revolution if not an American revolution? So, so, so hard to tell how history evolves. But you got to assume that without an American revolution there would be a lot less freedom and liberty in the world. It's hard to tell what would have happened exactly in America over time. I assume we would have gotten independence from the UK at some point, but when, what kind of country would we be then? Because it would have been later, so we would have been more statist. You know, would the industrial revolution have happened with quite the veracity that it did again without the intellectual foundations that the founding fathers lay down and without the example that America ultimately presents? I think at the end of the day the world would be less free, less rich, and things would be a lot worse in the world than they are today. A lot worse. Thank you, Shazma. All right. $20 questions are open up available. Hopper Campbell, how long can this mix between plunder and trade continue? Who knows? I don't know. A long time? I mean, basically until either we convince people that this is really, really bad or that the people being plundered go on strike. I don't know what happens first, but it seems to have a long life because what happens was you plunder, plunder, plunder, and then the people being plundered rebel, but what they rebel is not fully so you reduce the plunder to get them back to producing and they start producing again and then you start plundering again and plunder, plunder, plunder. This is why it's an intellectual battle and until you actually convince people that the plundering is evil and wrong and immoral and their life is being hurt, even the people who, quote, benefit from the plunder are actually losing from it. Until that actually happens, this is why it's such an intellectual. The whole thing is such an intellectual battle, such a philosophical battle more than anything else. And I don't know how long it takes. It could take a long time. All right, I see my Celtics are down. Not good. Not good. All right. Let's see, your views on the verse John 1513. Greater love has no man than is than this to lay down one's life for his friend. You know, it depends. What does that mean? Right? I don't think greater love has no man than this. Love for human for what? And how good of a friend is he? And what's the context? And is the friend worthy of it? And ultimately, is it a self-interested act or is it altruistic? And it can be altruistic in many, many cases. It's a bad friend. It's a friend who's made a mistake. It's a friend who's done bad stuff or it's a friend who doesn't appreciate you. There are lots of reasons why what you might do by laying your life for a friend might be bad for you. So it's not necessarily honorable. It depends on the motivation. It depends on the context. And this is so crucial to everything to understand the objective morality. The objective morality doesn't give you a set of commandments. It gives you a set of principles by which to live. And then whether you live up to them or not is the question. Thank you, Frank. Richard, doubling down on my topic for Adam's show, the economic impact of emerging AI and a declining workforce. All right. I'm copying and pasting that. You know, one way or the other, you know that that is a topic we're going to be covering a lot in the next weeks, months, years to come. All right. Is objectiveism a universal philosophy? I wonder if sentient alien species would come to the same conclusions. Yes, I definitely think it's a universal philosophy. And look, when you say universal, it's based on the knowledge you have of what the universe constitutes today. If there's a species that somehow functions by a different set of principles, ideas, biology, laws of survival, laws of existence, then yeah, I mean, it might be that objectiveism turns into a universal philosophy for mankind and not for other species.  Once they're rational, my assumption is that, yes, objectiveism is universal, so you have to add the rational. But yeah, I can't imagine a rational alien species that has a philosophy that contradicts objectiveism.  What can you say to make me feel better? I mean, good riddance.  One of the most selfish things you can do in life is separate yourself from people who commit fraud, people who exploit other people, from people who want to fake reality. He is a faker and, you know, faking reality is devastating. It's devastating to the person who does it and it's devastating to the people who are close to that person. Your boyfriend would have caused you real harm if you had stayed with him, and my guess is that his cheating on you is not the only example of him being dishonest, usually when somebody is dishonest and dishonest in more than one realm. So, good riddance.   And your focus should be, again, how to make your life the best life that it can be. And associating with cheaters is not a way to make your life good. So, separate for them. You know, strike out and go find somebody better. There are lots of good people out there. Find somebody better. And, you know, his cheating, don't take his cheating as a statement on your worth. It's a statement on his worth. And clearly, you know, he wasn't with it. So, he is the guilty party here, not you.  It should impact his. And he should and will suffer the consequences. I have no doubt in my mind. I hope that helped. I don't know. I'm not sure I'm good at making people feel better. I don't know. Ragnar the Desert. Voice of a please advise as soon as possible by email. Okay, I am swamped right now. Really, really, really swamped. So, I apologize. It's taking me time. I'm not sure what do I owe you exactly, but I'll check my emails and maybe send me an email reminder, because then it pops up at the top of my email with exactly what I need to respond about. And I will, but again, I am swamped and lots of stuff going on in the next couple of weeks and maybe the next few months, I don't know. So, difficult for me to prioritize. Okay, Shazbot says, I just had a green tea mochi treat and it was delicious. Yeah, green tea mochi or whatever you pronounce it is really good. I love that stuff. If you can find any place that sells them, I recommend it. Yeah, I've eaten them many times. The problem with green tea mochi, mochi, mochi, like most desserts is it's way too sweet. Way too sweet for me today. I used to love it, but even the green tea, which is not as sweet as some of the others, is too sweet. So, as much as I, as much as I like, as much as I remember, have fun memories of a sweet tea mochi, I have to, I have to resist. I have to resist. All right, Apollo Zeus, sense of humor as sense of life. I don't have a lot to say about this. I'm not an expert on humor, but no question that your sense of humor reflects a particular kind of sense of life that you have. It is a reflection of what you find important or not, or what you find silly or not, what you find unimportant or not. It is significant. It is meaningful. So, I think it's a piece and a part of what constitutes your sense of life. Your sense of life will guide the kind of what you find funny. Apollo Zeus asks female bodyguards your thoughts. I have no problem with female bodyguards if they're good. If they're there because they're good at what they do. They're fast, they're strong, they know martial arts, they can shoot straight, I don't know, whatever, depending on their particular job. But no problem with bodyguards that are female. They are unbelievably strong, athletic, super killer, you know, martial arts, amazing women who have no problem with them being my bodyguard. James, you would think to become a professional intellectual would require enormous levels of self-esteem, but based on the number of anti-American intellectuals out there, I guess not. No, I mean I don't think it does. I think it's something that, you know, it requires a certain level of confidence in particular realm. I do see that there's a question about the difference between self-confidence and self-esteem and there's a big difference. You can have confidence in a particular skill, in a particular skill set. You can have confidence in a particular ability and particularly engaging in particular activities. But self-esteem goes a lot deeper than that. Self-esteem goes, and you could say that, also too, he has self-confidence. He knows how to write. He's a good writer. He can manipulate his audience. He knows what he's doing in that sense. But self-esteem is deeper. Self-esteem goes to why you're doing what you're doing. It goes to the value of what you're doing. It's going to the value, it's going to your perception of value.  It's a much deeper and all-encompassing and more fundamental assessment of yourself. It's not just a confidence to walk into a room and schmooze or walk on a stage and talk to people. Lots of people, Donald Trump has self-confidence. He has no self-esteem. He does not esteem himself. He doesn't value himself while he is confident in what, in some of the things he does. All right, anonymous user, despite the wrongful futile wars, hasn't the U.S. typically fought against evil regimes, organizations regardless? Yes, I mean, the United States has typically fought against evil. The other parties have always been worse than the United States. I can't think of an example where the United States fought against a culture, a society, a regime that was better than it. My concern with the, with the EMR wars is not what they inflict on other people. My concern with the EMR wars is our own soldiers, the price to us of those wars. Okay, Justin asks, what's the difference between ethics and morality? I don't really think there is a difference. I think there's synonyms. I mean, I know technically I'm sure there's a difference. You know, one is the application maybe and one is the theory, but I think they're basically the same. I don't use them in any kind of different way. All right, last question from Justin, will the Celtics win tonight? It doesn't look like it. They're down by 12 points in the second quarter. It does not look good. So I'm going to go in and maybe my chewing them on through the television will change things. But it doesn't work that way, of course. But yes, I'm not sure what's going on out there, but Celtics are not playing well and it looks like they're not scoring and their offense is stilted. It's just based on just looking at kind of the score sheet and they better wake up. They better wake up because soon it'll be too late and this is it. This is it both for going to the finals, which they have the potential to win. And for making history, being the first team to come back from his 3-0 deficit and win a seven-game series in NBA history. But they're shooting terribly. I mean, they started up pretty well, but they're shooting terribly. Jalen Brown is three of ten. Tatum hasn't taken any shots. One shot Tatum has taken. They're just shooting terribly. 25% field goal percentage right now. So they have to wake up and they have to start shooting and they have to start winning. All right, guys, thank you. Thank you, Kibb. Thank you, Stephen Harper. Thanks for the support. Really appreciate it. Thanks for being here today and commemorating Memorial Day with me. I will see you all tomorrow. Tomorrow we've got two shows. One in the morning news roundup and then in the evening we'll have Ankar Ghatte join me and we'll be talking about is Objectivism a closed system, an open system? Is that even a question? Is what about fact and value? Can you infer a value from a fact? And we'll also be talking about sanction. Who you should go up and stage with? Who you should debate? Who, you know, when do you mall sanction somebody and when is it appropriate to do so? Okay, Andrew says, yesterday's member show on art, reignited my enthusiasm for romantic painting and sculpture, particularly Michelangelo's Moses and Apollo and Daphne. The great artist's power to elicit emotional states is awesome. Thanks. I'm really glad you enjoyed it. Again, those of you who are members have access to that show, take advantage of that, enjoy it, watch it. You can watch it many times. I think at least looking at the pictures is worth watching it many times. And those of you who are not members can become members and go and watch it. And, you know, at some point I will be showing it to non-members as well. All right, everybody, thank you. Thank you again for all the superchatters. Thank you for all the support and I will see you tomorrow.