How badly has the British government handled the coronavirus crisis? Has their strategy and messaging changed over time? And with more than 2,300 people dead so far and that number rising rapidly, did they fail to understand the scale of the challenge which confronted them just a few weeks ago? Allow the disease, as it were, to move through the population. We're going to have to generate what we call herd immunity. 60% is the sort of figure you need to get herd immunity. To build up some degree of herd immunity. Herd immunity is not our goal or policy, it's a scientific concept. Our policy is to protect lives. Many more families are going to lose loved ones before their time. Stay at home folks, protect our NHS, save lives. There are actually a few coronavirus patients and I shook hands with everybody. The rate of infection has been doubling every three to four days. We're already seeing the government try to cast blame elsewhere, whether that's China or the general public. Some of the reporting from China was not clear. Is China to blame for Britain's slow response? Or did our politicians only realise the scale of the problem when it was all too late? And should we really be blaming all the members of the public or does that just let the government off the hook?  Well I don't know because it's very selfish. COVID-19 is a pandemic, an act of nature. It was always going to take lives, whatever happened. But it's the actions that states have taken that have so far saved lives. That's why per head, South Korea, Norway and Germany have far fewer deaths than countries like Britain, the US and Sweden. People are inevitably going to die from this virus and factors like an older population like in Italy matter. But how societies respond through measures like testing, social distancing, lockdowns and protective equipment can also make a critical difference. Now when you're dealing with a crisis, the first thing you need to do is appreciate the scale of the problem. When did British politicians start doing that? Let's look at the timeline. The first known case of COVID-19 was in Wuhan, China back in November 2019. By December it was clear that there was human-to-human transmission of this virus. Now doctors who tried to raise the alarm with colleagues about this new disease in late December were reprimanded and the Chinese authorities failed to publicly acknowledge there was human-to-human transmission which was of critical importance until January, where which time a 61 year old male had died in case had been reported in Thailand and Japan. This was wrong and is why parts of the British press and government are now seeking to blame the Chinese authorities. But that was just the start. On January 23rd Britain's Department of Health issued its first press release on COVID-19 reassuring the public that the risk to the UK population has been assessed as low and that any visitors to Wuhan, the epicentre of the breakout in China, should quote, maintain good hand, respiratory and personal hygiene. But within 24 hours this press release, the city of Wuhan and others in Hubei province went into complete lockdown, making that advice immediately obsolete. On January 24th six Chinese doctors published an article in the Lancet a globally recognised medical journal stating COVID-19 could have the acquired ability for efficient human transmission. Furthermore, and of even greater concern, was how it was already clear that high numbers of those affected required intensive care treatment. That combination of easy transmission and intensity would soon overwhelm healthcare systems around the world. And yet the British government at this point, like many others, still fail to see the threat. On that same day, the 24th of January, Britain's Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty claimed, quote, we all agree that the risk the UK public remains low, but there may well be cases in the UK at some stage. We've tried and tested measures in place to respond. The UK is well prepared for these types of incidents with excellent readiness against infectious diseases. By this point the potential severity of the virus was clear and the British authorities had accepted that there may be cases of COVID-19 in the UK at some stage, but they remained adamant. Measures already in place were sufficient. Three days later on January 27th, that stance was repeated as Health Secretary Matt Hancock told Parliament that there were no confirmed cases of coronavirus in the UK and that the risk the UK population was, quote, low. Answering parliamentary questions on both the 29th and 30th of January, the government repeated that claim, although it now advised against all travel to Hubei Province. Advised being odd because Wuhan was already in lockdown as the death toll in China jumped to 170 and the virus began to spread across Hubei Province rapidly. On January 31st, Britain left the European Union. Now it could be argued that given the importance of that moment in the government's agenda, they'd taken their eye off the ball and yet even in the days and weeks that followed, their response to the COVID-19 threat remained only the same. On the same day, Britain had its first two known cases of the virus with two Chinese students in York testing positive. As late as the 7th of February, Public Health England repeated how, quote, the risk to individuals remains low, appearing to contradict the stance of other government agencies and the World Health Organization. Indeed, it was so confident the UK had sufficient capacity, it said it was, quote, testing samples from countries that do not have assured testing capabilities. What is more, despite Wuhan being a lockdown for two weeks where large numbers of people were being taken into intensive care, the government's advice was that if you traveled from Hubei to the UK in the previous 14 days, to quote, immediately, even if you do not have symptoms of the virus, stay indoors and avoid contact with other people as you would with the flu. They also instructed people to call NHS 111 to inform them of their recent travel abroad. It added, if you've returned to the UK from China, Thailand, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia or Macau in the last 14 days and developed symptoms of cough or fever or shortness of breath, you should immediately stay indoors and avoid contact with other people. Even now, with WHO having declared a global emergency, the British government's approach was about self-regulation and critically, no testing, which, whenever mentioned by the British government at this point, was related purely to helping other countries. We know that large numbers of people infected with COVID-19 are asymptomatic, meaning at this point, there could have been hundreds of people passing on the virus to their friends, housemates or family members without knowing, even if they did choose to voluntarily self-isolate. And because the virus can take more than a week to incubate, those people in turn would pass it on, even if they self-isolated after becoming sick. By this point, it was clear, the British government was not taking this as seriously as they should. It was only on February 10th that the Department for Health and Social Care declared, quote, the incidents or transmission of novel coronavirus constitutes a serious and imminent threat to public health. In the week that followed, the virus itself was still seen as primarily being an issue of foreign policy, not a domestic concern. The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, said, the UK is a world leader in tackling global health issues, spending $6.5 billion over the last five years. Thanks in part to the centre of excellence that is the NHS, British doctors have been at the centre of the response to every major disease outbreak around the world in recent decades, and coronavirus is no different. Yet, until just six days before that, people were coming to the UK from the affected area and they weren't being tested. I've been through essentially no screening process. Furthermore, any self-isolation was entirely voluntary. On the 24th of February, China and the WHO held a joint press conference and told the world that, at the peak of the outbreak in Wuhan, exhausted medical staff like personal protective equipment, and that China's hospitals needed to invest in more ventilators. Now, the advice to other nations was clear, with Dr Bruce Ellwood, a senior WHO advisor, being completely candid about its scale, declaring complacency is the single biggest risk. Thinking you've beaten this virus is the single biggest risk. It was now long established that the virus was easily transmittable, dangerous and overwhelmed, even well-resourced healthcare systems. What is more, the Chinese experience demonstrated the need for far greater capacity of ventilators and safety equipment for healthcare workers. Now, it was around this time at the end of February that in a story published in the Sunday Times, it was alleged that Downing Street Advisor Dominic Cummings outlined the government's strategy at a private engagement. Those presents say it was dramatically at odds with the scientific evidence so far and the recommendations of the World Health Organization, with the quote in the Times reading, herd immunity, protect the economy, and if that means some pensioners die, too bad. Despite the first known case as being as far back as late January, it wasn't until 3rd March the UK government announced its official coronavirus action plan. Even now, however, the tone was off, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson failing to convey the severity of the crisis, telling people they should simply wash their hands with soap and water for the length of time, that it takes to sing happy birthday twice. On the 5th of March, Johnson sowed yet more confusion when he appeared on a daytime TV show. The Prime Minister even shook hands with his TV host after saying this. This was done more than a month after it was widely known that COVID-19 spread remarkably easily and was far more fatal than seasonal flu. Even now, however, the Prime Minister failed to take it seriously. On the 10th of March, the government was still saying there was no rationale to postpone sporting events in Britain because of coronavirus. The Cheltenham Horse Racing Festival went ahead that day, attended by a quarter of a million people. It would later be found that 10 of those people were infected by the virus. Meanwhile, close to home, Johnson announced on the 12th of March that testing of people with mild symptoms would stop, flying in the face of World Health Organization advice. The next day on the 13th, his chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, appeared to repeat the alleged comments of Dominic Cummings. We do face the prospect of, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, of an increasing number of people dying. In other words, for hundreds of thousands of people to die and millions to enter emergency care. And one more thing. The premise of herd immunity is that once you've had coronavirus, you're immune. And the thing is, we don't know how long that immunity might actually last for. The science remains unclear. After all, this virus has only been known to us since December last year. At this point, it was a matter of speculation on radio and TV news as to whether we should be seeing a similar number of casualties to Second World War. What do you think was tougher? Living through the blitz or living through this virus? Living through this virus. And this from a government which for weeks have been claiming to be well prepared and for the risk to be low. On March 15th, the Health Secretary met Hancock told Sky News the country had around 5,000 ventilators, but that we need many more times more than that. The urgent need for ventilators has been established in the last three weeks earlier. And yet, at this point, the government had failed to consider procuring new ones or building any extra healthcare capacity. The following day, on March 16th, Hancock asked ventilator manufacturers in a tweet to contact the government. A tweet. If nothing else, surely this would underline a lack of preparedness with several of his Tory cabinet minister colleagues doing likewise. This was the same Matt Hancock who just six weeks earlier had said that the risk to British nationals was lower than the country was well prepared, but now the government was beginning to acknowledge a full blown crisis and in real time on social media. Yet still, the Prime Minister himself didn't appear to be taking things seriously. On the 16th of March, Johnson stated that risks of transmission of the disease at mass gatherings such as sporting events are relatively low. And while he advised people to avoid bars, cafes and pubs, these places remained open with his own father appearing on daytime television saying he would go to one. Of course I go to a pub if I need to go to a pub. The following day on the 17th, as Johnson shared a conference call with ventilator manufacturers, he reportedly joked about this as Operation Last Gasp. By that point, 71 people had died. By the 20th of March, the first reports of hospitals being overwhelmed were coming in. And despite the government repeatedly saying that NHS staff would have all the equipment they needed, staff reported back that they were wearing paper masks, plastic aprons and gloves instead of full PPE. We've had doctors tell us that they feel like lambs to the slaughter. All of this was a month after the exact same shortages were highlighted by the WHO and healthcare professionals in Wuhan. Here, as with ventilators and so much else, the government had failed to act as it should have. And it wasn't until the 23rd of March that Johnson finally announced some form of lockdown. Two months after the original action had been taken in Wuhan, where it had been shown to work. By now, the UK death toll exceeded 300 and Johnson told the country that the coronavirus is the biggest threat this country has faced for decades. But just a week earlier, mass gatherings like concerts and sports events, major risks for transmission, were still going ahead. This concert in Cardiff was held on March the 14th. Four days later, on the 27th of March, the death toll stood at 759. The editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, lamented that the NHS had been wholly unprepared for this pandemic and called it a national scandal, the gravity of which has yet to be understood. He slammed both the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser for not heeding the warnings from China early enough. They had a duty to immediately put the NHS and British public on high alert, Horton said. February should have been used to expand coronavirus testing capacity, ensure the distribution of WHO-approved personal protective equipment, and establish training programs and guidelines to protect NHS staff. They didn't take any of those actions. The result was chaos and panic across the NHS. Patients will unnecessarily die.  How could we allow this to happen? The hypocrisy of clapping NHS workers and yet the government not supporting them to go into that front line is tragic. It's not uncommon for some of our staff to have had panic attacks. I'd assumed that it would be the older and the sicker, but some of them are coming through who are young and fit. The following day, on the 28th of March, Stephen Powis, the medical director of NHS England, openly conceded that if we can keep deaths below 20,000, we've done very well in this epidemic. 20,000 deaths. Less than three weeks after the government said there was no rationale to postpone sporting events like Cheltenham, and a little more than two weeks after it decided that testing people with mild symptoms was unnecessary, contrary to WHO advice, test, test, test. 20,000 deaths was now being presented as a success story. Given that remarkable U-turn, with it becoming ever clearer that the government had been asleep at the wheel, it's no surprise that more recently there has been a concerted effort to blame the public and, yes, China. And yet, it's the government which failed to act quickly and decisively enough. The choices they made have, without any doubt, cost the lives of many, many people. We'll find out just how many in the weeks and months ahead. For now, however, Britain is on the same trend as Italy, despite having precious additional weeks to prepare. While the government failed to respond appropriately for a month, if not more, is unclear. It is likely that the accumulation of a general election hangover, similar scares in previous years, failing to be bad as predicted, and a default among Britain's political class to think they're somehow immune to tragedies elsewhere, all played their part. And yet, we now know we aren't different. For a government to go from a low threat to 20,000 deaths would be an outstanding achievement, and all in the space of two months, is a spectacular failure from the Prime Minister to the Department for Health and the government's scientific advisers. Action now taken will undoubtedly save lives, but from testing to protective equipment to simply failing to comprehend the scale of the problem until it was too late, the government's previous actions seem almost inexplicable. This is, without any doubt, one of the single greatest failures of government planning in recent history. And how do NHS workers view things, the one taking risks to keep us safe after years of budget cuts and rising work clothes? We are literally making it up as we go along, said one, according to Lancet. It feels as if we're actively harming patients, said another. Total carnage. Forget lockdown, we're going into meltdown. When I was country director in many conflict zones, we had better preparedness. The hospitals in London are overwhelmed. And finally, the public and media aren't aware that today we are no longer living in a city with a properly functioning Western healthcare system. A health crisis was inevitable, but calamity of this magnitude, well, that was a result of political negligence. In the months and years ahead, when people look back and reflect on what went wrong, whether that's an inquest or inquiry, if it is found that herd immunity was a strategy adopted and pushed by senior members of government, advisors, ministers, scientists, well, those people would be responsible for the lives of many, many people. What's more, they should never be welcome in public life ever again.


workshop that I'm going to be doing. You could actually watch it as a recording, everything else. You got the link right there. I'll post it up again at the end of it. And also, if you're like Cybertrain University, we've been around for 30 years. Please like us and friend us. We broadcast live every morning on YouTube, social media, Instagram, Facebook. We're on at 9am of the morning and we're back on 230 going through exactly what we're talking about today. But right today I'm going to go into more of the details how we do it. But if you want to come and join us, please subscribe us. And most importantly, like us. Now, let's talk about exactly what is that whole thing that just showed you about the 9 o'clock in the morning of the live broadcast and the trading room. Well, you know, the thing is this, we start trading at 8am in the morning. Some of you be like, that sounds early. Some of you might say it sounds late depending on where and what part of the country or part of the world that you're in. But the thing is early bird gets the money. That's how we kind of go by. And the big thing is with the book map, which a lot of you probably don't know if you're watching this as a recording or whatever. But there's a lot of tools like the book map where you can get pre-market trading. We do most of our trades early in the morning because we have access to the market just like you do before the rest of the main street has it. And they don't know that. If you deal with some of these online brokers and I'm not here to pick on them and make fun of them. But the thing is if you want to be successful, you got to have access to the market early. But the thing is this, how do you find which ones out of that are moving in the morning that are going to move when the market opens up? Well, I'm here to kind of talk about how we find our stocks, what makes them what we call treatable and non-tradable, which means what stocks give you less risk with more reward, you know, and why we would trade one versus the other. Now, I don't know if all of you here have watched me before, but some people like, I never heard of that stock. I know your traders in your room and your instructors, you know, I saw your trades, but where did you find that stock? I'm going to tell you exactly how. But the thing is this is where people get confused. We're over 20,000 stocks out there. Okay. How do we know how to find the one that's going to give you the least amount of risk with the high amount of reward? That's what we're going to do. Because by understanding that, the book map is going to come in after. Now, book map platform is a absolutely phenomenal platform. Like I said, we use it every day, but you can't, how do you know when to use book map? Because book map is obviously probably your last step that you need to do. And not in a bad way.   This looks pretty easy. And then you're wondering, wow, I'm making money.  Or saying like, I don't understand. Or maybe getting into a stock and not knowing you sold one price. And by the time you get out, it's a different price. These are things that we call tradable and non-tradable. There's three things that we teach at Cybertrain University that I was taught as a market maker. It's called tradable, trend, and trap. That last T of the trap is the book viewer. The first T we're going to focus on is the stock, which gives us how we find them. And the second one is the trend. And then obviously, checking out the book map and see, okay, now we know what we're going to trade. How do we know which one's going to move? Where are those orders? Because actually, what the book map is all about. It's not focusing on the past, focusing on the future. Now we work on something called the percentage gainers and losers. Every broker term offers it. Problem people look at this and they're like, you know, FALSTO, there's a lot of stocks that are moving on that watch list. How do you know which one is going to, why you picked this one versus that one? Now Bruce has, you know, Bruce did mention too early before we started, but Bruce goes all the way back in the days when he used to watch me do trader's challenges. I'm actually a 12-time champion at the Money Show. I beat every school I went up against big deal. That doesn't make you money, right? The question is, Bruce is sitting in like all those other hundred people who should watch me like, and they're trading these stocks. I'm like, well, why is FALSTO trading that one? And they're trading this one. Well, like I told you, going through the big percentage gainers is very key because I want to trade stocks to have good volatility. Stocks like that are up 65%, 25%, 10%, not these stocks that you trade every day at one, two, three percent. I'm like, but I never heard of these stocks. But the thing is this, we work off the big percentage gainers and losers. And I just want, I don't want to go over or kill about it. But like I told you, I'm going to show you some stocks that we traded. I'm going to go into the market and I'm going to show you the book map. But like today, there were a couple of stocks that are moving and there are some stocks that you, a lot of you here are like, I don't know, I'm looking at this and it's not moving. So going through the most active is very key. Now, how do we do that? Let's talk about some examples that we have. Let's start off with a stock that's moving this morning called ABGR. Now, ABGR, you could see right here was the second biggest percentage gainer in the entire NASDAQ market. Now, you're like, well, what about CATX? What about WorkR? What are all these stocks? Like, why did you pick that one specifically? Well, there's a couple of reasons why. First of all, the stock is trading some big volume. Stock is, you know, when you look at CATX, it's 34 cents. This stock is $6, a little bit more expensive. Why don't we, what about number four? This one's basically trading 28 cents. I don't like to trade stocks under a dollar and I'll go into detail with that. But then you have a stock right here at MARI. It's at $5. So there are a lot of stocks out there. So what I'm looking for, stocks that have a lot of volume, which means they'll have a very tight spread and it has good volatility. So that's one stock. Now, let me just bring up the stock and show you what we got going on here. AVGR. And you can see AVGR right here. I'm going to bring up an execution system to show you what we got. So AVGR, the stock was, if you look right here, it was at one point at somewhat time of this year, it was about $24. Stock got destroyed. It was all the way down to four. Now, when you look at this, here you have a stock that starts this morning at 9.30 and was hovering somewhere around here around $6. It shoots up all the way up here to seven. And then right around here around 10.10, you'll see the stock go from $7.20 and it shoots all the way to $8.40. Now, why did that stock gap up on pre-market, then go up again and what we call consolidate and do another pop? Well, let's think about this for a second. What drives stocks up and down? Supply and demand, buyers and sellers, that's it. And the problem with a lot of traders out there, they'll go out there and focus on the past and look, okay, the stock's going up. Where's resistance? Where's support? That doesn't work unless you have those same buyers you had in the past that are in the future. And when we look over here on Bookmap, we'll see right here that we had this really big run up. I'll bring this up over here and show you what I'm talking about. So right around here, when you look at the Bookmap, you'll have like a little bit more of a heat map on it, okay? And you'll see all these lines, orange lines, red lines. Now, if you'll notice this kind of looks a little messy. You might look at it like, you know, Faso, I mean, maybe some of you advance or probably understand what we're looking at. I can get into more detail about it, but I want to focus more on the beginner's part. And I think this is where people get discouraged. You look at this and you kind of get thrown off. So that's why maybe I would not consider trading this stock, even though it had a really good run up and the stock went up really nicely. It's up, now it's up about 67%. It was up about $2. You know, it did back off because of resistance or some sellers. But maybe there's something less risky with more control. So let me go back to my PowerPoint. Another stock that was on there this morning was Nikola, okay? Now, Nikola down the list was number seven, trade 166 million shares and it's up 25%. So I want to go and look at Nikola, okay? Now, Nikola is now just made number five on the big percentage gainers. Now, look at this stock really quick. Look how pretty the stock is. Started around nine o'clock this morning at $1.25, okay? And then around 10 o'clock it ran to $1.45. Now, you might consider it be like a deal, 20 cents. You know what? If you put $10,000 into that idea, maybe $12,000. You bought 10,000 shares and that stock moves 20 cents. You made $2,000. That's about a half a million dollar salary. Oh, now all of a sudden things change, right? Never looked at it that way. Let's say you bought a thousand shares, okay? You made a $1,000 investment, $2,200 investment. You made 20 cents. That's $200. $200, if you do that every day, 30 minutes is a $50,000 salary. Now, listen, I'm not here to talk about the big six figures, this and that. Some of you probably would be happy with that. I know I would, okay? But the other thing is this. As the day game went on, it went to $1.63. Now, where did we find that? Which I showed you right here, okay? Very inexpensive. It's on the big percentage gainers and not only that, but you could see it right here on the big watch list.  How could we have known that stock was going to go up? Well, you're going to love this one. I'm going to hop over to the book map, okay? Now, I'm going to zoom in over here and I'm going to show you something really, really cool. So, here's 930. Everybody see this right here, 930? You see this little red little line right here? Somebody showed up right around that time and if I click on it, you'll see that number right there is, if you look on the bid, that's $468,000 shares. Somebody went out there wanted to buy it, okay? That is not chump change. The power of book map is that it shows you those orders that are out there and now, if I zoom in a little bit closer, maybe you don't see it or whatever. I'll bring up a little closer. We'll see right here. Here he is right there and then all of a sudden there was a seller here for 500 but he canceled his order. Now, why would anybody cancel their order? Okay, is it spoofing? Is he trying to like, is he really a seller? Maybe he's trying to, whatever it could be. But at the end of the day, you know what? When as time went on, he canceled, he showed up. Now, why did this guy cancel? Well, two reasons. Obviously, the stock's at $1.28. He's at $1.18. No one's not selling to him. So, he can do two things. He can go out there and cancel his order and start hitting new offer. Now, you notice that there is another thing that was very attractive about this screen right here. Right here, there was a 230,000 share seller and there was another seller for $250,000, $48,000. There was another seller for $270,000. What is that called? Resistance. Sellers make resistance. The difference between this buyer and this seller is that seller got executed, which means someone boarded from him. How do we know that? If you watched my previous video, I did a detailed video on Bookmap the last time I was on the last episode talking about price action. Definitely want to watch that one and once again, make sure you like it. Maybe leave your comments there. We'd love to answer you back on it. Look at the volume here at the bottom. The buyer got executed. Guess what? He got executed. Stock went higher. That buyer got executed. How do we know that? Look at the volume bar. Look at the green balls. What happened to this guy at $1.40? He got executed. Look at the volume bar. Look at the balls. So, what happened was this is called a ladder effect and this stock went higher and that's why you have another stock that had a basically good move all the way up to this price right around here. Now, all of a sudden, now we have a $497,000 share seller show up at $1.65 and now you can see that we're trading within a range of this $1.65 down to $1.50. That's why the stock right now is hovering. Now, listen, I know this doesn't sound super active. I know this doesn't sound... Oh, by the way, the guy just cancels order, which means probably he changed his mind. But the thing is this. There are other stocks that you could also trade, like large cap stocks and I'm going to look at some large cap stocks because some people here, they look at these stocks and they're like, you know, Fausto, I'm not really a fan of an expensive stocks. First of all, I don't know why anybody would say that because less risk, more reward. Why are you here to make money? That's what I was taught. And when I was a trader, when I started out, do you think my boss is going to give me the responsibility to manage a million, a $5 million account and say, oh, you're starting? Oh, yeah, no problem. Here you go. I'm going to give you all this boatload of cash. I want you to trade an expensive deal. Go out there and do what you can do. Listen, would you put somebody, let's say you're in the heavy machine business, you know, driving tractor trailers and stuff. Are you going to put somebody on a crane to work on a building that just came out of, you know, you just told them for a day? No, not at all. You know what I mean? It's the same thing. But some of you are doing it and we're going to talk about it. Let's talk about Tesla. Okay. Now, Tesla is trading somewhere close to around $300. 300 versus $1.20. Number one, do you need a lot more money to do it? Secondly, you're going to be dealing with the best traders on Wall Street. If you're cool with that, that's fine. No problem. Let's go look at Tesla, because I know a lot of people like looking at it.  Let's look at the book viewer. So before we do that, let's look at Tesla right now. So Tesla, this morning, right now, it's down about $7. And it's been on a little bit of a downtrend right here. You can see it started around eight o'clock. It was trending down, which is a great way of looking at it going short, which I hope a lot of you do short because shorting is awesome. At $227, once the market opened up until everyone knew about the short, and then when the street, like some of you, got in, boom, the thing dropped so way to $264. That is literally almost a $8 drop in a matter of 15 minutes. That was a great short. Now, the issue though here is it's expensive, and you know what? You deal with the best traders on Wall Street, but it's okay. We're going to check Tesla anyway. Let's go check out over here and see what happened and what caused the stock to go down. So I'm going to zoom out. I'm going to zoom. Go back a little bit in history. Hold on. I need a little more data here. Right now, I'm only back an hour. Let this thing go back.  So you could see some of these big, big orders.  First, trade 100 shares. Actually, you have to trade 50 shares to equivalent to that thousand. So, you know, you got to make a bigger move in this than to trade that one. As this is loading because Tesla does have a lot of data, you could see it up here in the red. It's still trying to bring up that data. Just waiting to kind of get all that data in there. You could see right now that Tesla does have some big red lines. You got a big one right here at 265. You got another big one here at 270. And you got another one here at 264. Hmm, 264. That makes sense. Why does that sound so familiar? Oh, I know why. Because that's where it hits support levels right here. Right, see that? So not only is he out there as we speak right now at 130, 120, whatever time is, he must have been the same person who was out there at 9 o'clock this morning. So we're done with the data. We got it up here. We're going to go back. Now we can zoom out a little bit. And you could now when you look at this, does everyone notice these little heat lines? Look at these little heat lines right here. You got one right here, which looks like it broke it right around 165. But then you got this one that showed up here at 164. 165 was the same. That one right there. You could see it right here. And then you could see the resistance levels right around about 270. Now, when you look at pre-market, you could also see a lot of these orders in the pre-market. But the majority of these orders will start kicking in right around here when the market opens up. What makes this so very attractive is that not only can you look at it as a day trade, but here at Cybertrain University, we also teach swing trading. And if some of you are looking here on the long-term chart, you could see, okay, well, you got a big line right here at 278. You got another one here at 260, which by the way is way, way out of the range of the stock. If you zoom out a little bit further, look at this. Now you're talking about a 190,000 share seller at 280, another 100,000 at 285. So now you're getting a little bit more of a range that you can use it towards a swing trade versus day trade. Now, if you're day trading, obviously you want to focus on these prices that were here. And if you're swing trading, you can look at those bigger trades down there, down in the distance. So getting back to the chart, all those supports and resistance levels make sense. 264 to 265 to 270 right around here. It looks like more of a resistance here. Let's go look at the long-term chart. And so we got right here, but we saw 280. There's your resistance at 280 right there, resistance levels there. You got your support levels down here. So now you're seeing that, not only using the book map on the short-term version, but you could see it on a long-term version. But let's get back to why we're here. Why are we focusing on Nikola versus Tesla? Because it literally is 20 times less money. Actually, I'm sorry, 200 times less money. So as a trader, think of anyone, I don't know if anyone here is in real estate. When you go into real estate, are you buying it because of you like the house because it's pretty for you? Or are you buying it because it's a good investment for yourself? Or are you buying it because you can make a lot of money on it? I know you, everyone here would be like, wow, I would never buy that town because it's a foreclosure. It's a bad neighborhood. But you know what? Something, you know what, as a business decision, yeah, you might not buy for yourself, but you sure damn well buy it to make a hell of a lot of money because that's your business. It's like, it's like trading today's markets. You know, are you trading because of policy? Or are you trading because of politics? If you're trading because of politics, you're going to lose all your money. But if you trade because of policy, you might not like their political belief. But as a policy, it's going to make a certain stock move. And that's why we're moving. Like what's going on recently? Pot stocks were moving. Some of you might not be interested in pot stocks, but I'm going to go hop on, look at a couple of them. There were a couple of good ones that made some good moves. What were some of them? There was what do we have? We had Grow, GRWG. Look at the move on Grow, $2 to $3. There was another one that moved, MSOS. This one was great. This one went from $5 to $10. TLRY, till right, another popular one. This one ran from $2 up to $3. Is there another one that we had? CGC was another one. CGC. And some of you might look at these stocks and say, I would never trade out. First of all, I'm so against pot stocks. Well, I don't want to trade a $0.50 stock, but sure enough, one from $0.50 up to $2. Do you really care? No, you're not doing it long-term. You're doing it short-term. And the big thing is this, when you look over here on the book map version and you start looking at it and they're moving, you're going to be like, why are these stocks moving? I don't like their stand for, but as a trader, I'm not buying it for myself. I'm not looking to smoke this stuff or whatever. I'm against pot and whatever. Who cares? Traders don't look at that way. We look at it this way. Like Tesla, I'm anti-electric cars. I don't like, but you know what? If it's moving, Tesla, you think I care? Or Rebian or any of those other stocks? But the thing is this, regardless of what the company does, I'm more concerned about price. Price action is key when it comes to trading. I'll give you another example. NVIDIA. NVIDIA, very popular stock. It's been doing phenomenal due to AI and everything else. Stock's been on a big run. But you know what? If you bought NVIDIA about a week ago, what happened to NVIDIA? It went all the way to 500 and came all the way back down. So you know what? Who can use the same style that we use on inexpensive stocks and more expensive stocks? The only issue is that you just need to come up with more money. Now, I want to make one other point too, because we do get a lot of these questions and I know it's so popular. Options. You know what? The next person, as they asked me a question, would be like, okay, Faso, I know I can't buy NVIDIA or maybe I don't want to invest $400,000, but some people are like, well, I could buy 100 shares or $40,000. Maybe I'll just trade the option. Let me just give you my two cents on options before anyone considers to trade an option.  Options are very attractive. They're very fun. But who's more wealthy? The person that owns the house or the person that rents the house? When your options are renting all day, there's a time when to rent and there's a time when to buy.  You want to be a good options trader, you damn well better be a good stock trader first because it's the movement of the stock that makes an option move. And a lot of these stocks that you see are moving like Tesla or whatever, that person out there that's buying Tesla right here or just bring it up here. That's seller out there for 190,000 shares, almost 200,000 shares, 280. Do you really think that as a person looking to sell that amount of shares? No, it could be an option. First of all, do you notice right here it opened up at 930?  That could be an option, cover call, whatever it may be. You know what I mean? So a lot of these stocks that you're trading, once you know how to trade a stock, then you'll understand when you look at the book map, you look at these long-term big targets and the expiration dates because that's another way how we trade using the book map platform. But getting back to why we're here, it's about risk to reward. And risk to reward is all about trading stocks that are less risk with more reward stocks like NKLA and when you have a stock like NKLA and it goes up and you only had to technically risk $1,000 to make 60 cents, I'll do that all day because if you can make let's just say 50 cents on 1,000 shares, that's $500, that's $100,000 a year salary. That's why people love this job. But some of you look at it and be like, well, how did you know what's going on? How did you find it? Very simple. It's off the big percentage gainers game list and it's all about once you find that stock that has, which by the way, I've got to mention this, which has a very good spread, penny spread, a lot of buyers, a lot of sellers. And then when you go to here and you're looking at book map and you're seeing big orders like I showed you there for $500,000 and then these other sellers getting executed, it just makes it a little bit more simple. That's why book map is a great platform and I swear by it because I couldn't live without it and I'm just being honest and I'm not getting paid for saying that. I get offered platforms all the time, but to use it successfully, you have to first find the right stock that you're looking at and knowing what makes them tradable and what makes them not tradable. Now, what I'm looking to do for everyone here, I want to invite all of you, like I mentioned earlier, to come into my training room and we have a couple of workshops. I want to go into detail, great detail of how we scan the market, how we work in pre-market, how we use the book map platform and seeing if those orders are still out there, where are the program trainings and algorithms coming in? Where are these dark pools that you probably are scared of? Those dark pools out there, where are they? Book map will help you find them and strategize around it, but to do that, you first have to know what the risk to reward is and the risk is, what is the cost to me by that stock? Most importantly, if I'm wrong, what's the cost to me to get out of that stock? Then, what is the trend of it, which is the second T and three, the third T is the trap. Where is the street doing? Where are they buying it and where they're selling it? So, like that said, we're in the middle of the day. We're in the heart of September, October, November, which is probably the most volatile times of the year of trading and going out there and finding these stocks, looks like we got a halt on this stock. Oh, look at this. This is pretty interesting. CCG, stock started this morning, just went from $25 to $70. I would never trade that stock. I would never trade. I think it's moving too fast, but if you want to know how we found stocks, ABGR and knowing why we trade this, not trade that one, I'll trade Nikola and maybe you want to do a swing trade on Tesla and having that game plan or maybe trading and see what's going on with the pot stocks. Is it too late to jump in because they're having a big run up, now they're starting to trend down or maybe even hearing about what's going on, UAW, about the big strike with all the top three car companies. Do I trade forward? Do I trade GM? Is it a short? Is it a long? I don't know. One last tip of the day I want to give you is what one of my greatest mentors always taught me when I started. My old friend, Frank Ferraro, he's told me it's his foul stout. I want to make a lot of money in trading. It's not about making money. It's about controlling and not losing it. The only way you're going to control the losers is risk to reward. Don't worry about the winners. Don't worry about looking at, listen, when I started, I told you with Bruce and he used to watch me do all those traders challenges and be beating all those traders out there, does not make you money. I never go into there worrying about making money and winning. I always worried about losing. If I lose, that's okay. I'm going to lose in trading. We're all going to lose in trading, but to lose it, I'm not going to go out there because got that I'm in one stock that's too volatile.  You don't want to do that. It comes down to risk to reward. What I'm going to offer all of you is this. Before we all go, I want to basically, oh, it's a Tesla event.  It's free. It's not going to cost you anything. Just take your phone. Click on that QR code. You got that email right there in the bottom and then also please subscribe to our YouTube channel. Like us. Like us on this video. We're going to be on the book map on their YouTube channel. Share us. But if there's anything you could take away from today, it's about risk to reward. If you want to be successful in trading, you got to make sure the stock is tradable. And I'm willing to go through that with you in great detail and give you those workshops because I just came back from Canada. I was just telling Bruce, I've been going to Canada for over 20 years. Love the Canadians. I would say 20% of my traders are all Canadians. And one thing I've learned from the Canadians that being up over there and being up there for the over, you know, been done for three years, that had been there three years because of COVID. There were so many people out there that just are lost. And you know what the most popular thing they were asking me? They said they were asking every presenter because there was a presenter before me. And they were asking me, they were asking the presenter, Hey, what's level three? What's level four? I call book map level four. And the guy, no one knew. No one knew. And just the interest out there that everybody's starting to know what is level four, what is book map just shows you that there's a very big interest that people want to trade. And there's a very big interest of knowing how to use the system. But to do that, you got to learn before you could earn. So take that QR code, click on that link right there. And we'll be happy to get you in the trading room and see the hundreds of traders that we trade every day on doing something that you want to learn how to do it. Now, with that, Bruce, is anyone have any questions? I'm going to take some questions. If anybody was looking at something, or just you could basically just hop in in here. Don't want to go into great, you know, no, I think we're good Fausto. I've been answering some of the questions along the way here. Good, good, good, good. Well, well, listen, looking to look and forward have Bruce come in. I don't know if everybody knows Bruce and you've seen him. He's just been a wonderful asset to book map.  Those are too far from me. So he's nice to have seen Bruce.  And like I said, once again, how to use the book map platform. It's always great. And this is the kind of the relationship that you have. You know, listen, if you like it, great traders around yourself with great traders. So, but to do that successfully, you got to learn how to use the system. But most importantly, how to find those stocks. So Bruce, thanks for having me. Look forward to seeing you next week. And book map fans, like I said, look forward to seeing you all in the trade room. Thanks for watching and happy trading and enjoy the rest of the year. Excellent. Thank you, Thao Sto.


I'm here on the waist. It's almost like I'm kind of digging with this forearm. We're either turning with the hand sides kicking, bottom toes trapping. I get this turn or not. That's how we were capturing that cross wrist, any bellies down. Then I'm back at the top. Cross wrist rule, real good. But you're just grabbing it and riff different turns. Never control points. Alright, let's go.


Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We're at the Accenture Technology Vision Event 2018. The actual report comes out in a couple of days. We're here at the preview event. Couple hundred people in downtown San Francisco. A lot of demos of AR and VR downstairs. It really Accenture kind of highlighting the top trends that they've surveyed their community. And we're excited to be here to be joined by one of the experts. He's Tony Parisi on theCUBE a long time ago. We looked at 2013, amazing. He's the global head of AR and VR for Unity Technology. Tony, great to see you again. Good to see you. So you've been on this AR VR virtual reality thing for a while, amazing development in the space. I've been working in the field for a couple of decades now in one form or another. And it's just been great to see with the resurgence of virtual reality. And we had experiments 20 years ago trying to turn this into a consumer-ready technology. Really wasn't ready yet. With the advent of Oculus and some of these other technologies, we've seen something that a consumer could afford that enterprises can afford in large numbers. You know, a sub-thousand dollar piece of hardware connected to a personal computer that's a few thousand dollars that can drive amazing VR experiences. These same kind of immersion techniques brought into a phone where you can take a smartphone and just look through it like a magic window into this extended reality where you're seeing 3D graphics that persist in the environment around you. These are all working toward this future where we're going to have all this 3D amazingness, digital magic in front of us. And it's just incredible to see how far we've come in all these years and how it's just about to be both consumer-ready and be deployed into businesses for all kinds of different productivity applications. Yeah, it's interesting that Accenture rolled them all up into one. They went with the extended reality. Because there's a lot of confusion. Is it augmented reality, virtual reality? You know, how much of it is virtual stuff overlaid to reality? How much is reality is brought back into the virtual space? But at the end of the day, it's a lot of blending. It's going to depend on the application. Devlin depends on the application. If you just take marketing terms and put them aside because everyone's got their own way of talking about this and agreed, there's a little bit of confusion right now. If you just look at the common element, it is 3D graphics. It is graphics that represent objects, environments, places, people in a way that's much more realistic, that's much more intuitive for an end user to grasp, that touches us and our brains in a place that a flat screen doesn't so that we remember it better or learn it more effectively. That's what all of these different techniques have in common. So, you know, call it what you want. Accenture's rolling forward with all of that. My company Unity is supplying the core technology to power all of that across 30 platforms when you look at the whole industry. Game platforms, which is where we were born. And now in a VR and AR, it's, you know, a dozen platforms, at least, that look like they could be viable. The common element for anybody who's developing is that it's 3D graphics and they're going to make investments in certain kinds of software, certain kinds of application design and techniques and knowledge that's going to transfer among all of these different kinds of hardware platforms. Because we know at the end of the day, they'll be a handful, probably three or four that end up dominating, just like in any other part of the computer industry, with any other digital technology. So, you know, we're in this moment because it's so early. We're the technology. We don't know how to talk about it yet. But I think if you look back, probably the same thing was true of mobile and the PC at the time, if you were in the middle of it. Right. People call it the PC, or they called it the internet, or they called it the web, and then they called it mobile or a smartphone. You know, there's just all these terms for it, but that, you know, we'll see, that'll be in the rearview mirror in a couple of years. And we'll just take this for granted as all this 3D stuff now in front of us. Whether it's this 3D place, I go into it at VR headset. Yeah, even we were at Baobab Studios last week, and you know, even in entertainment, right? Early television replicated just a stage, right? And early movies replicated just a stage before they figured out what they could do at the medium. Same thing here, and interesting comment, you know, how much of it's interactive, kind of game-like, how much of it's narrative storytelling like a movie, and he's like, don't think of it that way. It's a completely different medium with a completely different opportunity to tell stories, to do things in a different way. 100%, that team at Baobab's amazing, they use Unity a lot to create their experiences, and they're the first to tell you, we don't quite know what it's gonna look like in a few years. We're trying lots of different things. We are gonna start from some, you know, touchstone, some places we already know, game design, linear storytelling, but this is a different beast, and we don't know where we're gonna get. They have a great example of a company that's not afraid to experiment.  You can look all around, you can see the entire action and folding around you, and more than that, they've made you a part of the story. They make you a character, usually a secondary character, so the whole burden is not on you as the viewer to have to figure the story out, but someone who can help the story along so you feel fully involved.  I mean, it starts with just kind of being a secondary character, but as we learn this as users, as we learn how to do this, we may start making the stories up and being a much more active part of it, but somehow still having that sweet spot where we're giving the director and the content creator the final say in sort of how this world is being created. Brett Leonard, his famous director, he did Lawmower Man, if you know his work. In the 90s, a seminal movie about VR, he's back in the world here, also doing VR again, and he likens this to world-building. He thinks VR creation for entertainment is much more like creating a Disney theme park, a world that you can inhabit and be part of and have fun for hours, days at a time, versus telling one story from start to finish. Right. So I mean, think about what's gonna happen in the next couple years. It's mind-blowing where this could go, and we really don't know. None of this can predict. So you're deep, you're deep into it, Tony. I wonder if you could share a story about maybe some applications that you're seeing either in production or kind of in development, where people are not thinking, layman like me, obviously we know entertainment, we know games, we know some of the industrial stuff, like walking a shop floor and seeing the RPMs of a machine. What are some of the applications that we don't know that you see coming down the pike? Well, if you just think about, take one industry, like the auto industry, right? I think you can imagine, like you said, if you're somewhat versed in this, the idea that you could use virtual reality to design a car, instead of what they do today, which is they use some 3D computer-aided design packages, but they still build a physical prototype of the car out of clay and, you know, company-wide, a Ford or a Volkswagen or a company like that will spend millions for every new car building these physical prototypes. They want to replace that with purely digital and virtual processes at some point, which is gonna save them a heck of a lot of time and money and materials costs, right? But now you just take that one example and you take that car design through the entire life cycle of that car to when it's assembled, manufactured, you can train people in VR how to do that, when it's getting rolled out into a show floor so people are selling it, all the way to when that car is a self-driving car, that you put somebody into and they get in the cabin of that thing in the cabin because there's no driver in there anymore, you have now a lot of room in there, right? Right, right. It's an entertainment center. So these kind of augmented virtual reality technologies could potentially touch every phase in the life cycle of not just the development, but the deployment and the ongoing operation of a motor vehicle as we know it. So that's gonna radically transform things sometime in the next five to 10 years. All right, Tony, I'm gonna let you go to parties underway, we've got the autonomous robots that are playing in the band. In five years from now, we can't wait five years because I don't even know what's gonna be here. I hope we do this again. It'll be crazy different. One of that's a five years from now. Crazy different, so thanks for taking a few minutes. All right, cheers. Tony Friesi, Jeff Frick, you're watching The Cube from the Accenture Technology Vision 2018. Thanks for watching.


What's up everybody Jason here for jazzy's case brace calm 2021 top sterling baseball just sold out This is a new release as well guys to box break random hit number one. I got guys four total spots First we will open up both boxes distribute the hits I'll showcase the hits Then what we'll do is we'll randomize the customer names and we'll type in the four list of hits And whatever you match up with is what you get this year's first high-end baseball product guys top sterling baseball So Let's showcase the hits first guys. So here's the case. It's actually a pretty big case So I'm gonna do some of the layout these boxes here And I would just randomly generate There's eight boxes in a case You do at least four of these breaks All right guys, so there was one two three four five six seven eight Let's try to generate two numbers really quick Um, I'd use that as an excuse Jimmy I'd I'd probably pick up a card in person if it was worth more than my 10 grand especially if the flight is cheap But I think I think I've had people for sure fly out for anything like over 20 25,000 And then of course if it's like a hundred thousand dollar card for sure you're flying out Maybe 25,000 seems more fair than 10. Maybe just I'd be just too excited to get a $10,000 card for all All right first one One is generated So that'd be the top box up here And two and there's like one and two All right one and two here we go so I'll just I'll just leave these actually over here to this corner because maybe we will do some of these tonight some more of these So there you go All right guys last year was the first year in 2020 where they brought back top sterling and like I don't even remember how long it was It's been a really long time Two hits autograph relic numbered to 25 or less or unique one-on-one relics Not expect this to be that rough All right, they kind of give you hints so you guys can want to potentially see who this these cards could be So the first one's going to be retired numbers One autograph relic card number to 25 or less or one unique one-on-one relic And this one is a Hall of Famer. So that's actually a pretty broad list potentially right there Jonah it would be I think they're like 900 bucks. Maybe 800 bucks. So if you do a random hits like half the cost because we're getting one of the hits In the box So this one's a retired numbers one The Hall of Famer one Oh snap. Come on. I got stuck right there. Come on, man Jesus It's not supposed to be stuck right there. It's supposed to pop out all together All right, so if you guys see if you guys already peeked. Oh, well, I'm sorry That was not supposed to happen I'll do a better job of holding this one up So you guys don't see it Actually this time they're stuck together All right, then guys first one was gregmatics That is nine out of ten Triple jersey and auto out of ten and I didn't see this one Whoa, it's a cut autograph Richie Ashburn one of one cut autograph Looks like old school Philadelphia Phillies. Maybe Looks like also was like a postcard or something outfielder for the Philadelphia Phillies That's cool. Little one-of-one cut. Oh, let's ask boss man right now about Richie Ashburn days I'm sure boss man knows him MLB all-star 2010s and world series champions So guys, I'm just showcasing the hits here first And then what we'll do is we'll type in the list of hits We'll randomize the customer names and the hits and whatever you match up with is what you get So again, if you guys want to run another one of these back, we definitely can Plenty of time Hey, look at this mic. You you remember you remember, uh, this guy? Richie Ashburn, huh? Yeah Wow Is he not legend in Philly? Is he not with us anymore? Uh, no, Richie is no longer with us Legend in Philly legend We do not Tom We do not uh, you kind of just have to check out our break schedule That you guys have access to 24 seven Um nightbot drops it like every five minutes. I just actually pinned it right now But uh, we do not man. Uh, like I said, you kind of just have to look at the website So it says sold out then check out the break schedule And I'll tell you when it'll potentially a break. Uh, if there's no fillers or anything attached to it Or like I said, you can always look at the youtube videos in case you might have missed it we have Jacob DeGrom 18 out of 25 Yes, so yeah, Tom that break is down to one left But there is a little filler we have to do as well to unlock that break But I expect that break to happen at some point tonight So definitely check out that break schedule to google doc that you guys have access for that google doc is very actually Has a lot of information like it says it tells you the shipping schedule What breaks and what days have shipped out already what breaks are sorting what breaks are pending Uh, any of our like, you know Scheduled like card shows we're gonna go to You know pretty much all the info you need for sure In case you you know need a little bit more info And we have another one of one and this time it's anthony rizzo Game used memorabilia another one-on-one Game used memorabilia. So we had a cut auto one-on-one and now a one-on-one anthony rizzo patch In box two that is awesome And there you go. That's just like that. That was the break now What we're going to do guys is we're going to uh type in the list of hits the way they came out So the first one was greg maddox second one was richie ashburn cut auto Then we had jacob digram And the one-on-one anthony rizzo So let's type in those hits really quick greg maddox patch auto nine out of ten Then we have Richie Ashburn Cut auto one-on-one Then we have jacob digrom Jersey auto 18 out of 25 We got anthony rizzo This was a Jersey letter Patch one-on-one. So there you go There were the four hits now guys and then again, here's the diastro there's a customer name So chris got the first two and pj got the last two So good luck everybody. Let's roll the dice and we have ourselves a two and a four for six times roll another six one two three four five six There you go. So chris at the top pj pj down to chris And let's go six times two and a four one two three four five six And it looks like we're splitting it six times Richie ashburn cut autograph down to jacob digrom So there you go So chris you have the richie ashburn cut auto one of one congratulations pj with the anthony rizzo jersey letter patch one of one pj with the greg maddox patch auto nine out of ten and chris with the jacob digrom jersey auto 18 out of 25 So there you go guys. That was the break that was top sterling baseball two box break random hit number one Number two is on the also in the store. We have four left all four spots there Again, there could be some really really big hit tidying in here guys Uh, remember there's eight boxes in a case. We have at least three more breaks to this. Appreciate you guys. Jaspy's case breaks dot com


You can build a light up project inspired by the star fragments from video games such as Animal Crossing and The Legend of Zelda. This geometric star is fully 3D printed and illuminated with Neopixel LEDs. It's powered by a Wi-Fi dev board to know what time it is so it'll light up when the sun is setting and turns off when the sun rises. Just like the Illuminous Collectibles in the game. Powered by the Adafruit Qtipi ESP32S2, this dev board features the expressive ESP32S2 Wi-Fi chipset. It's got 13 GPIO, 4MB of flash, an onboard Neopixel, StemaQT, and native USB for running CircuitPython or Arduino. The Neopixel driver BFF allows you to quickly add Neopixel LEDs to your projects. It has a 5V level shifter and detachable JSTPH connector. It's designed to fit on the back of any Qtipi or Xiaomi board. The code was written in CircuitPython by Liz Clark and uses the open-media API to get the sunrise and sunset. The code uses the API to request when and where the sun is and then calculates the time remaining until either the sunset or sunrise. In the loop, time is tracked and pings every 5 minutes. The Neopixels gradually brighten or dim depending on whether the sun is setting or rising. The core of the Star Fragment is a dodecahedron that has 12 holospikes that snap fit together and they're 3D printed without any support material. A 3D printed mount houses two Neopixel sticks and snap fits into the bottom of the dodecahedron. The bottom spike features a hole for passing a cable and snap fits into the Star Fragment core. All of the pieces are hollow and allow the Neopixel LEDs to fully illuminate the geometric shape. We also designed a base and stand for the Star Fragment to rest on so it can prop up nicely on your nightstand. In anticipation for the next Zelda game, we thought it'd be fun to take this out in the wilderness and reminisce about finding a Star Fragment just like in the game. We hope this inspires you to check out CircuitPython and the QtPy ESP32S2 for your next bright idea.


The floor made up your robot. Sometime in 2000, Nickelodeon created the tape. This is shown in the copyright information during the beginning of the tape. April 26, 2001. The 2B employee and 4 of his friends were wandering the streets of Kelowna late at night. Keep in mind, him and his friends were only around 15 years old at the time. One of his friends stumbled upon a VHS tape labeled, Confidential Tape. It found, returned to address. They decided to take the tape home and watch it the next day. April 27, 2001. The tape began with the SpongeBob intro, however it was heavily distorted. The audio barely synced up with the video. The scariest part of the intro was that halfway through, they stopped and were replaced with sobbing, which eventually turned into a manic laughing. After the intro ended, the tape briefly turned to static. Afterwards, a completely red title card appeared. It read the following. Confidential tape number 81. The videotape you are about to watch should not be viewed outside of Nickelodeon. Copyright, Nickelodeon Incorporated 2000. By now, one of the teens had set up a camera pointed at the TV. The episode then began. It started with SpongeBob flipping patties, as he normally does. Crabs then asked for a single Krabby Patty. Almost immediately, SpongeBob started screaming, as if he was in a life-threatening situation. The screen then turns black briefly, before showing Squidward laughing happily. It then zooms out to see that he is laughing at the sight of SpongeBob's grave. A disgustingly realistic, zombie version of SpongeBob then busts out of the ground in front of the grave with a knife. He then attempts to stab Squidward, but it quickly transitions to black. Then an eerie sound starts playing. Slowly, a faceless SpongeBob fades into the scene, with subliminal messages reading things like, kill, and, trust, flashing on the screen. The eerie sound continues for over a minute, before the black background behind SpongeBob turns into the end credits background, with a distorted version of the credits music. Around half a minute later, it suddenly turns into loud gritches. One of the teens tries to remove the tape from the TV, however it wouldn't work. The teens eventually left the house. The glitches continued for over two hours, before one of the teens' dads took a photo of the glitches and unplugged the television. April 28, 2001. Two of the five teens had identical dreams about violently murdering their entire family with a knife, that SpongeBob gifted them. June 3, 2001. One of the teens suddenly had a flashback to the episode. He died of a stroke minutes later. June 4, 2001. One of the teens committed suicide. July 1, 2001. Two of the teens became murder victims on vacation to France. March 29, 2019. The last remaining teen got hired by Nickelodeon. He said that the interviewer's mood suddenly changed from neutral to somewhat angry, as soon as they were told about the incident.


Artificial intelligence, AI, has had a major impact on the healthcare industry, from improving medical imaging and diagnostics to helping manage electronic health records. It has also been used to provide virtual patient care, reduce administrative workloads, and even assist with rehabilitation. However, there are many technical, ethical, and social challenges associated with its use, such as privacy, safety, and cost. Governance is essential to ensure patient safety and accountability, and to raise healthcare professionals' confidence in the technology. With the recent pandemic, AI has become increasingly important in the healthcare sector, and it will continue to play a vital role in meeting future healthcare needs. This article was authored by Ahmed Al-Kawadi, Khalid Nazir, Abdullah Al-Reidi, and others.


Now, we're thinking about those kind of transactions that often happen at the beginning of the business or possibly when expanding the business. We can look at it with the accounting equation. Typically, we need assets, we need cash. How do we get cash to start off when we're not generating it yet because the business hasn't really got going yet? We've got to finance it with liabilities, possibly loans or equity. That's the money from us so that we can do what? We can purchase property, plant and equipment. The things that we're going to need to help us to generate revenue in the future, which are recorded as assets but can also be thought as a type of investment. The reason they're in the business and not outside of it, which is not just hanging onto it in our checking account or putting it in stocks and bonds is because we think we can get a better return on it. We had a transaction to increase the checking account for the investments and then we put some of that money into a short-term investment just to hold on to hopefully getting some return on it as we then think about the purchase of the property and equipment that we're going to buy and now we're buying the property, plant and equipment. Now note that how much property, plant and equipment you might need will of course be dependent upon the type of business you are in. There's many businesses that people can start that don't require very much at all for the entry. Start a YouTube channel and try to earn revenue. You could start working on gig work and whatnot with very little up front and that's great. The problem with those types of businesses are that you have to have some kind of superior business model in terms of competing with competition because the barriers to entry are much less so you usually have more competition in those areas so you want to differentiate yourself somehow in those areas. If you're in other types of businesses sometimes you need to buy of course equipment in order to really get your business going and so that's the next step often times for starting the new business. We raised the capital now we're going to buy the property, plant and equipment. What is that? That's buildings that we might need that would be the equipment that we might need to purchase and the furniture for example. We here imagining we have a guitar shop that we're going to sell guitars and basically we're going to be basically having guitar lessons will do in the future and rent out some equipment. So notice of course what do we need? Well we need the shop. We need to either rent it or buy a shop and then we're going to need to furnish it in some way shape or form. If we're going to do guitar lessons we're going to have to make it look nice within the place and then of course we need the equipment which we could purchase the equipment that we're going to later sell and then have inventory of the equipment and or have some equipment that we're going to have on hand that we expect to be renting out and generating revenue in that way.


So let's speak to Fran Boyd, he's executive director at the campaign group Positive Money. Fran, good morning. Look, we've seen the volatility and we talk about those numbers from like 19,000 to 4,000. I mean, that's ultimately what's behind this. It's so volatile and Lloyd's is saying that we don't want to be part of this just yet. Exactly. Today we're seeing yet again another bubble bursting, this time Bitcoin. And the move from Lloyd's is that it doesn't want to be on the hook if the price continues to fall, which it's likely to as it's a bubble bursting. The concern is by the move is that a lot of people have have taken out debts in order to buy bitcoins. And the worry is, is that, you know, people, there have been stories of people investing their life savings in this is the UK economy continues to decline. And more and more people are struggling to make ends meet. The worry is that they're looking to risk you risk your ways of of making money and Bitcoin and hysteria we saw towards the end of last year seems to have resulted in a lot of people taking out debt to buy bitcoins. Should a bank be in a position where it's telling people what they can and can't do with the money that they want to spend on their credit card? Well, as we all know, banks have various regulations on credit cards and what you can and can't buy, you know, if you if you buy a car and your credit card and it falls apart, the bank is liable. And it's making a move here to say it can see that the the bubble is bursting. And so it's it's actually putting a stop to it. I think what we need to also think about is the hype around Bitcoin. You know, it is a bubble at first, but it although it is a floor and it's in in the technology and it's turned into a speculative asset. I think that, you know, as the cryptocurrencies explode, we're going to see governments and central banks kind of struggling to figure out how to regulate things. But actually, behind that, there is a technology which could be used for actually making our money and payment system more fair. And you say the bubbles burst, but I mean, we should be clear that these things can go up in value as well as down in value. And there's nothing to say that, you know, the big falls we've seen of lay it can't just go back up again. Well, if you look at the actual trajectory of Bitcoin since around 2011 when it first came on the scene, the real hype and hysteria that we've seen that the the rate of growth in the last year really. And then the fall again is unprecedented, you know, up to 14,000 pounds per Bitcoin at its peak. And we're already down five and a half thousand after just in a month. So it's looking like that. This is definitely a Bitcoin bubble bursting and unlikely to happen on this scale again. One will keep a really close eye on as I'm sure you will, too. Fran, thanks very much. Fran Boyk, their executive director at Positive Money.


Hi, I'm Zor. Welcome to InDesertEducation. Today we'd like to talk about one particular operation on the vectors. It's called ScalarProducts. Yes, ScalarProducts. Well, we operate with different objects in mathematics. And with numbers we can add or multiply them, for instance. With triangles, for instance, we can calculate their area or something like this. So basically vectors are also a subject of manipulation. We know how to multiply a vector by a constant. We know how to add two vectors together. In both coordinate form, the tuple representation, and in geometric form, when basically we know the lengths and the direction of the vectors. Now in the first case, for instance, the direction remains exactly the same, and the length is multiplied by k. If k is positive, the direction is the same. If k is negative, the direction changes to the opposite. Now if you are summing together two vectors, then we're using this rule of parallelogram, which is the result. Now in coordinate form, if you remember, if a is in two-dimensional case represented as a1, a2, and b is represented as b1, b2, they're coordinates, x-coordinate, and y-coordinate of the endpoint of the vector. Then multiplication by a constant means actual multiplication of each component, because that actually gives you the proper lengths without changing the direction. And in case of addition, you just add correspondingly x and y-coordinates. So the sum would be a1 plus b1 as an x-coordinate and a2 plus b2 as y-coordinate. In three-dimensional case, it's this one. Now these are old operations which we have learned. Now this lecture is dedicated to a new operation, completely new operation which we can perform with vectors. Vectors actually came from physical representation of certain objects, like speed, for instance. And Scalar product also has certain physical meaning, which we will address later on. So right now, let's just concentrate on an abstract operation on two vectors. And let's try to examine it first in tuple representation in the coordinate form. And later on, next lecture will be dedicated to their geometric representation. So let's say we have two vectors in their coordinate representation, in their tuple representation. Now I have chosen two-dimensional case. Later on I will explain the three-dimensional, it's exactly the same. So it's just easier to manipulate this two-dimensional case. What is this operation? Well, you know the arguments, two arguments. Now if we add, for instance, two vectors, we get the vector. If we multiply a vector by a constant, we get a vector. If we do this operation which is called Scalar product, or that product, or sometimes inner product, as a result we get the real number. So this operation, if you want, you can use the symbolics of the function. If the function of two vectors is a result, it is some kind of a real number. Now, well, that's fine. I mean we can obviously define many different ways we can derive the real number from these two vectors. For instance, well, we can add their lengths together. Is that okay? Fine, it's a function. You calculate the lengths of the first one, the lengths of the second one, and you add them together, or you multiply them together. Well, this is a different operation. And it has certain physical meaning as we will discuss later on. And that's why I would like to define this operation not as just the formula.  What is the symbolic representation of this Scalar or that product? Using the formula, it's this one, in three-dimensional case. In three-dimensional case, I add the third coordinate. I multiply, I'm sorry, my mistake. In three-dimensional case, it will be A3B3, etc. Now, I can give you this formula, and then we can examine the properties of this particular Scalar product, which is a real number, which is a function of these two vectors. But that's not really interesting. I would like to approach this in almost like axiomatic methods. I would like to think about this function as having certain properties, and then derive this formula based on these natural and reasonable properties, which we would like to put into this. Now, why I'm going to do this? Well, primarily because this course is not about giving you some facts about mathematics. It's about to develop your creativity and logical thinking and logic. So, that's why I would like to put some foundation, the logical foundation for this particular operation first, and then derive the formula from these seemingly logical and seemingly reasonable assumptions, almost like axioms of huge. So, what are these assumptions about the function of two vectors which results in some real number? Well, let's think about it. I have actually put something for myself as a guiding point. So, rule number one, I call it independence of coordinates. Now, you see that these are coordinate representation, right? If we change coordinate in some way, in some good way, so it doesn't change the lengths or angles, for instance, we can rotate our coordinate system. From this system, we can go to this system, we just rotate it. Well, obviously, all the coordinates of all the points will be different, and obviously, the vectors also will have different coordinates. However, what will remain in this rotation? Well, the lengths of the vectors, for instance, will remain. And the relative position of two vectors, let's say I have one vector and another vector. No matter how I move the coordinate, the relative position of these vectors, which is actually an angle between them, is the same. So, my point is that whatever calculation with coordinates we make, the result of this calculation should not depend on something like rotation or maybe shift or whatever. So, whatever the transformation is done, which doesn't really change the fundamental properties of the vectors, which is their lengths and their relative direction, which is angle between them, if it's not changed by change of the coordinate, then the result of the scalar product should be the same. So, it's a function of vectors' physical properties like lengths and angle between them, not the result of their concrete representation in a concrete coordinate system. So, independence of the coordinate system is very, very important. It's property of the vectors and their physical essence rather than their concrete representation in some coordinate system. So, that's number one property, independence of the coordinate system. So, the function which operates with these a1, a2, b1 and b2 should not really change the result if we change coordinates in a nice way. Rule number one. Okay, now number two. Rule number two I can express this way. This is zero. Now, what is zero with the bar on the top? Well, it's a null vector. Null vector has zero lengths by definition, right? So, it doesn't have really direction, it has zero lengths. Now, I think it's very reasonable to expect that our scalar product of any vector with the null vector will result in a real number zero. I think it's very reasonable and very logical assumption. Rule number three. This is a unit vector, the vector which has a unit length. Now, I think again it's reasonable to assume that if you have two, if you have the same vector multiplied by itself and the vector has the length equals to zero. So, it's not two different vectors, it's actually vectors which are the same. If we repeat it, we multiply it by itself, then the result must be one. I think it's very reasonable to expect that the vector of the length one multiplied by itself using this scalar product should give the result of this operation should be equal to one. I think it's reasonable. Commutative property. Again, very reasonable property. So, the formula should be symmetrical relative to A and B. If we change their order, the result would be the same. Now, we always expect something like a product, whether it's a scalar product or a product of different numbers to be computative. And also, there is an associative law with multiplication of one of the vectors by a constant. So, if you multiply one of the vectors by a constant and then multiply by another vector using the scalar product, by the way, pay attention, this is a product of a vector by a real number. This is a scalar product of two vectors, this one and this one. I'm using the same dot because all the properties are really exactly the same, like commutative law, multiplication, the associative law, multiplication. And distributive will be as well, that's the next one. So, anyway, this should be equal to K multiplied by a scalar product of A and B. So, this is kind of an associative law, but in this case, we are mixing two different multiplications. This is a scalar product, this is a product of the vector by a constant. This is a scalar product, result E is a real number, right? So, this is a multiplication of two real numbers. Anyway, I'm using the same dot because that's how mathematicians are using these, in these cases, and I'm not going to invent anything else, but you should really understand the difference between this dot and this dot, and this dot, they're all different. This is a scalar product again, this is a multiplication vector by a constant, this is a scalar product again, and this is a multiplication of two real numbers. That's why I put the parenthesis. And, well, obviously, with multiplication of another, it's also the same thing. If I multiply by a constant another component of this, of this scalar product. All right, and the next one is distributive law. Sum of two vectors, this is a vector. Scalar product with the third vector equals to the first component of the sum, scalar product with the third one, then the second component of the sum multiplies, and then add it together. So, this is a true distributive law. So, basically, the laws of scalar product are very natural, as far as I understand. Maybe the law of independence, the first one, might present certain problems, but in general, there is nothing wrong with asking that the product of two vectors depends only on their physical characteristics, like lengths, and direction from one to another, rather than the coordinate system. So, I think it's natural, and as far as these guys are concerned, that anything multiplied by null vector gives zero, and unit vector by itself multiplied will give one. I think it's also quite natural, and it corresponds to your, and mine, understanding of what actually the multiplication is, right? Multiplication by zero should give zero, and multiplication of one by one should give one. Now, so, being as it may, I think it's sufficient number of rules, or axioms, if you wish, to derive the formula for scalar product of two vectors in the coordinate form, and that's what I'm going to do. Now, what I will do first is the following. Think about the vector a, which has components a1 and a2 along the coordinates. I can actually write this vector as the following. As a constant a1 multiplied by a vector 1, 0, plus constant a2 multiplied by a vector 0, 1. Now, y. I think it's quite obvious. If this is the vector, this is your vector a, x component, y component. Now, this piece is a1, this piece is a2. Now, obviously, vector this one equals to sum of this vector plus this vector, because that's how the addition of the vectors is defined. This is the rule of the parallelogram. In this case, it's actually a rectangle. Now, what is this vector? It has a long, it has a length of a1, right? And it's directed exactly the same way as this vector. This is number one. So, the vector from 0 to 1 has coordinates 1, 0, right? Now, the vector from 0 to this point is exactly a1 times longer than the unit vector along the x-axis. So, that's why I specify this vector as a1 times the vector a10. Similarly here, unit vector is here. This is number one. And this vector is a2 times longer than the unit vector along the y-axis, which is 0, 1. So, if I add these two vectors together, I will get my vector a. Now similarly, this is equal to b1 times 1, 0 plus b2 times 0, 1. So, these are vectors in the parenthesis in their top of representation. It's like this one is a top of representation. So, these are unit vectors. 1, 0 is the unit vector along the x-axis. 0, 1 is unit vector along the y-axis. And a1, a2 and b1 and b2 are real numbers. So, this is a true representation of vector a as the sum of two vectors along two coordinates, x and y. Now, let's multiply that. Now, one vector is a sum of two vectors and another vector is a sum of two vectors. So, I can use these laws, very reasonable laws which we have agreed with, of commutative and distributive laws and dissociative laws, whatever, to multiply sum of two vectors by sum of two vectors, right? Now, what will that be? Well, if you multiply these vectors, you basically open the parenthesis in exactly the same way as you open the parenthesis when you multiply sum of two numbers by sum of two numbers. So, it's first times first, first times second, second times first and second times second, right? Because that's how you multiply using the distributive law. So, what if we will do this? All right. Let me put this aside. All these rules I have already specified. I don't need this picture here. So, the multiplication with this follows. A times B equals A1 times vector 1, 0 times B1 times 1, 0. That's first by first. Now, let's again think about what are these dots represent. Well, this is a multiplication of a vector by a constant. This is multiplication of a vector by a constant. And this is this color product. Because the result of this is a vector, the result of this is a vector. Plus, first by second would be something similar. So, the first one is this times this. Now, second by first, that's A2 times 0, 1 times B1 times 1, 0. Plus, A2 times 0, 1 times B2 times 0, 1. All right? Now, using one of the rules which I have already specified, like multiplication of one of the vectors by a constant, actually is the same as you multiply the vector by itself to the second component, and then the result will be a constant. And then I will repeat exactly the same thing the second time. So, instead of this, I can use, well, let me put it on the right, and then I will wipe out. So, it would be A1B1 and then 1, 0 multiplied by 1, 0. That's what it will be. So, I factored out, basically, I took out the A1 outside of the scalar product and then B1 outside of the scalar product. I twice applied the same rule. So, I will replace this with this. Now, similarly, I will replace this with A1B2 and then scalar product of 1, 0 by 0, 1. That would be instead of this component. Instead of this component, I will have A2B1, 0, 1. Scalar product 1, 0. And finally, this one would be replaced with this. Scalar product 0, 1. And this is sum. All of that. So, that's our scalar product represented in this particular form. Now, what is this? Well, it's a unit vector, a unit length of 1 multiplied by itself. And one of the rules is, if you remember, unit vector multiplied by itself should give the result of 1, right? So, instead of this, I can specify this. And that's it. Because this scalar product of 1, 0 by 1, 0 is equal to 1. Same thing with this. This is the unit vector on the y-axis, which is also multiplied by itself as a scalar product will give 1. So, instead of this, I can put this.  These are two vectors. They are also unit vectors, but they are not the same unit vector. It's two different unit vectors. And actually, they are perpendicular to each other, right? 1, 0 is here. And 0, 1 is here. 1 is x-axis. Another is along the y-axis. So, they are perpendicular to each other. So, they use this particular rule of unit vectors multiplied by itself equals to 1. Because it's not by itself, it's two different unit vectors. Okay. But let me point out, first of all, that these two are the same because they are commutative, right? 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0. So, whatever the result of this multiplication, it's the same in these two cases. So, what is the result of this multiplication? Well, let's just think about what is 1, 0 times 0, 1. Just this particular, what is the scalar product of this? Okay. One of the first rules was independence of the scalar product of the coordinate system. Once, if I take two vectors perpendicular to each other and do the scalar product, the result of this scalar product should not really depend on whether I turn my system of coordinate or I may be reflected relative to some. So, I perform certain changes of the coordinate system without really changing the lengths or the angles, right? Let's consider a different case. Let's consider this case. Minus 1, 1, 0. It's this one. It's 0 minus 1. Now, let's compare this pair, of course, this pair and this pair. Well, in both cases, the lengths of the vectors are 1. In both cases, the angle between them is 90 degrees, the right angle. So, according to my rules of independence of the scalar product of the coordinate system, no matter how you do this scalar product, it should actually be the same. Why? Again, because the lengths of these two is equal to 1 and 1 and the angle between them is 90 degrees. The lengths of these two are 1 and 1 and the angle between them is 90 degrees. So, the scalar product should be equal, right? But now, let's think about it. What is this? I can have this minus 1 as minus 1 as a constant times 1, right? And according to the associative law of multiplication by a constant, I can take this constant out as a constant and then have 0, 1, 1, 0. So, this is a scalar product and this is multiplication by a constant. And what do we see? Look at this. This and this. This is the same, right? So, we have something like x equals to minus x, right? Where x is the scalar product of this. So, what is x in this case? Obviously, x is equal to 0, right? That's the solution to this equation. So, my point is that multiplication of two unit vectors, the scalar multiplication, the scalar product of two vectors of the unit length perpendicular to each other, the result is 0. So, there are no other components in this sum. They are all equal to 0 and only the first and the fourth one remain. I have derived the formula like this. I'm not giving you as a definition of the scalar product in the coordinate form because, again, you might actually think about why. Why is this particular formula not something like, I know, a1, b1, a2, b2? This is also a real function of all four coordinates, right? But it's not this one. It's this one, this particular expression, which is actually an expression which satisfies all these reasonable, as I'm considering them, rules which I have specified in the very beginning. And one of the very important rule is an independence of the coordinate system. So, what I want to say right now is that if I will change the coordinate system, I will, let's say, rotate it. I will change it in a way which does not change the length and the angle between two vectors. If I rotate the coordinate system, the vectors basically have the same length and the same angle between them. Then, formula would be different, but the result would be the same. Coordinates will be different, but the result will be the same. That's very, very important to understand. Okay. Now, obviously, if I will change the coordinate system in a way which is like stretching, for instance, when the length of the vectors is changing, then all bets are off, obviously. This is not a transformation of the coordinate system which we are talking about. We are talking only about the transformation of the coordinate system, which does not change the metrics of the space, does not change the length, the angles. These, by the way, are called orthogonal transformations of the coordinate system. Rotation is one of them. Symmetrical reflection relative to, let's say, y-axis will be exactly the same. Some others. All right. That's what I wanted to present to you today. This formula, which again is not a definition, I derived this formula using some logic. Well, basically, we have created a new operation called Stuller Product based on certain reasonable principles which we put in the beginning. And that's very important because how mathematicians actually came up to this formula. They didn't come up just from the blue. They were thinking about we need a formula which would reflect certain properties which we would like to preserve, like, for instance, independence system transformation, distributive law, associative law, multiplication by number, et cetera, et cetera. And then they logically derived this particular formula. So that's what I would like to, like, inculcate in your minds. All these formulas are not just given to us by God or something like this. We have come up with these formulas as a result of logical conclusions based on certain principles which we consider reasonable. We can actually take them as axioms. Okay. So this is a representation in the coordinate form. And again, let me point out if I will change the coordinate system in an orthogonal form so it doesn't change the matrix, then obviously the coordinates will be different of these two vectors, right? But the result of this formula calculation would be exactly the same number. So the scalar product is invariant, so to speak. It does not change with relative to orthogonal transformation of coordinates. Okay. That's it for today. I do suggest you to go through notes to this lecture on unizor.com. And the next lecture will be about geometrical representation of the scalar product. Thanks very much and good luck.