I'm Darren Marlar and this is your Daily Dose of Weird News. If your throat's getting scratchy, you might be better off reaching for a Hershey bar over cough syrup. At least, that's what one leading expert from the University of Hall is advising. As he says, chocolate is better for a cough and respiratory problems than standard medicine. Great news! Hot chocolate and candy bars can now be deducted as medical expenses! Such as Megan of Sussex's estranged half-brother, Thomas Markle Jr., was arrested in Oregon last week on a DUI charge, which is considered a royal screw-up whether or not you are part of a monarchy. In a small study, people who brought paperwork into a meeting or negotiation were seen as being better prepared. According to the study, 51% said the person who has a lot of paperwork with them is better prepared. Pack the floorboards of my car for fast food papers and you can consider me a boy scout. They've been having problems with sea lions eating all the salmon in Oregon. They've tried relocating them, but they all found their way back. And now they're out shooting them. And if that doesn't work, they're going to combine the two and relocate the seals to Chicago. February 20th appears to be the day that Samsung is going to launch their Galaxy S10 phone. But then that crackpot, Ronald Wineland says Doomsday is going to definitely happen on June 9th, 2019, so you'll only have about four months to play with your new phone. Is that really worth it?  Grab a handful of walnuts. According to a study from the Marshall University School of Medicine, adding two ounces of walnuts to your diet may be one of your best defenses against breast cancer. In the study, mice that were fed the equivalent of what would be two ounces of walnuts per day for humans showed a delay in tumor growth, as well as fewer and smaller tumors. So the big question is, which candy bars have walnuts? That Super Blood Wolf Moon Eclipse is this coming Sunday night, going into the early hours of next Monday morning. Super Blood Wolf Moon Eclipse, wow, they couldn't whittle that down a bit? Sounds like a terrible fan-made horror flick with Harry Superheroes. Swedish officials have blocked a man's request for a car license plate saying, Christ. Although the way he drives, he may be hearing that word a lot anyway from drivers behind him. Samsung has rolled out their new 219-inch TV known as The Wall, which will make it that much more obvious that Big Bang Theory isn't actually funny. It won't be nearly as much fun as eating candy bars, but a big study is being launched to see if pills containing the nutrients in dark chocolate can help prevent heart attacks and strokes. The pills are so packed with nutrients that you'd have to eat a gazillion candy bars to get the amount being tested in this study. Hey, forget the pills study, I want to sign up for that study that lets us eat a gazillion candy bars. The police chief of Houston stopped a driver going 140 miles per hour. The chief could have arrested him for that, but decided to just give him a ticket. What? Man, if my brake light goes out, they're measuring me for an orange jumpsuit. Frontier Airlines is encouraging passengers to tip flight attendants. Sure thing. Alright, so what's a 20% tip on a fun-sized bag of stale nuts and a warm can of Coke? What is that, like 8 cents? An animal hospital in China is providing dog owners with another level of service by setting up cots that they can sleep on as they comfort their sick pets overnight. Which isn't really much different for husbands who are already in the doghouse anyway. A recent survey on genes reveals that men take longer to find the perfect pair than women. A third of women polled try on up to 10 pairs before making a purchase, while some of the men in the survey admit to trying on as many as 20 pairs before finding the perfect fitting genes. Which might be true, but while a woman will buy one or two pairs, we guys will get 15 pairs, so we never have to go shopping again. The first all-nude restaurant in Paris is closing after only a year due to not having enough customers. My guess is that open candles, hot coffee, and plastic seats just made naked people a bit too nervous. Costco is now selling a 27-pound bucket of mac and cheese that's good for 20 years. Perfect for parents of millennials who will still have their kids living in the basement in the year 2040. A restaurant owner in China who had 33 pounds of sausages stolen has written an open letter in which he offers the thief a job. It's not certain if the owner is serious about the job offer, but he did write that he admires the thief's bravery, quickness, and notes he must be suffering hardships. Personally, I think he's full of baloney. If you want to lose weight, don't diet by skipping breakfast. A study shows overweight men who ate eggs and lean Canadian bacon in the morning had a great sense of fullness throughout the day, compared to those who ate the extra protein at lunch or dinner. Wait a minute, so the news here is that if I want to lose weight, I should be sure to eat? Man, I like that plan! Police in Pennsylvania report they've arrested a wanted fugitive out of Baltimore. Anthony Ward was wanted for attempted first-degree murder for his involvement in a road rage-style shooting. Anthony's nickname, according to cops, is do-do-butt. Would it be cruel and unusual punishment then to put do-do-butt on his prison uniform instead of a number and then put him in the general population? Smartphone sales actually fell in 2018 for the first time ever, although smart users of phones have been dwindling for decades. For the first time in almost 30 years, the Oscars will air without a host. The producers are apparently planning for a group of A-listers to introduce various segments throughout the night. They still have not made plans yet on making the awards show entertaining or relevant. It's no secret that millions of Americans are sleep deprived, and being drowsy at the wheel is adding to the dangerous mix of cell phones and texting the driver's face each day. In a study by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 41% of drivers admitted that at some point in their lives they had knotted off at the wheel. 11% said they had fallen asleep within the past year, and some drivers confessed they had been asleep for more than a minute on a multi-lane road. After analyzing the data, researchers say accidents involving sleepy drivers are responsible for significantly more accidents than previously thought. It's thought that one factor is many young drivers that attend public schools and are so uneducated they think cruise control is the same as autopilot. A family in Georgia returned from vacation to find somebody else living in their home, and he refused to leave until he finished binge-watching the haunting of Hill House. Olympic gold medalist Ali Raisman suffered a broken elbow after falling down some stairs. See now that's what happens when you don't nail your landing while nailing your landing. Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon, has filed for divorce. Usually high-profile divorces take a lot of time, but as a prime member he's getting free next day delivery. Last week was National Bird Day. Apparently not a lot of people knew about it because whenever I flipped one to somebody they didn't seem to appreciate it.  Then, a few minutes later, the boyfriend called the same emergency number to complain that his girlfriend wouldn't remove her cold feet from atop his stomach where she was warming them. Sounds like they are perfect for each other. Michael J. Fox has got his first tattoo at the age of 57. It's on his right forearm and depicts a sea turtle with part of his right front flipper missing. If after a couple of weeks he decides he doesn't like it, he does still have the DeLorean hidden in the back shed. German police are investigating after an angry man returned a computer he had just bought saying it was packed with small potatoes instead of computer parts. The store replaced the computer free of charge but did become suspicious when he returned a short time later with another potato-filled computer casing. OK, word of advice here, you are not shopping at an Apple store if they are having a sale on Yam Books and Ice Buds. If you like what you are hearing, please leave a review of the podcast and share a link to this episode on your social media. Tell a couple of friends about the podcast and suggest they subscribe too. For Daily Dose of WeirdNews.com, I'm Darren Marlar and I'll see you next time, Weirdos.


Welcome back to our lecture series, Math 4220, Abstract Algebra I for students at Southern Utah University. As usual, I'll be your professor today, Dr. Andrew Misseldine. In this lecture 37, we want to talk about the idea of rings, right? What is a ring after all? I'm not talking about like Frodo's ring of doom or anything like that. Ring has a very proper algebraic definition, just like groups and other things we've talked on this lecture series. In fact, up until now in our lecture series, we focused on algebraic sets with a single binary operation with very few exceptions. Now, often in algebra, it is useful to consider a set with multiple operations that interact with each other in a very nice way. For example, vector spaces. In the last couple of lectures in this lecture series, we've talked about matrix groups, which really drew us into the realm of linear algebra. For a vector space, there are two operations in play. You have this idea of a vector addition, which is an operation maybe from like fn cross fn to fn.  These two operations need to really work together in some compatible way in order to even make it worth discussing the two objects together. With respect to addition, a vector space makes an abelian group. But why do we care about scalar multiplication if it's somewhat irrelevant to how addition operates? Well, the thing is when it comes to scalar multiplication, scalar multiplication distributes over vector addition. If you have r times v plus u, this is equal to rv plus ru, things like that. The scalar multiplication distributes over vector addition. We need that there's some type of compatibility condition between the two operations. It's not just studying two operations in isolation. We're studying the two operations together because they are compatible with one another. But that's not the only place to stop with vector spaces. If you take an inner product space, for example, that gives us a third operation called the inner product, the most famous inner product versus the dot product. Now the inner product also needs to behave nicely with the other two operations. So if you take the dot product, like take u dot, let's say v plus w, the dot product also distributes over vector addition.  We also need that the dot product behaves well with scalar multiplication. If you take ru dot v, this is the same thing as u dot rv, which is the same thing as just r times u dot v. So the operations in play, the more and more operations you add to your algebra, they need to somehow mingle well with one another. There needs to be some type of compatibility going on, which could be some type of like distributive law or homogeneity property or something like that. Now another example we've talked about in this lecture series is we've seen that with the algebra of sets, we have things like intersections and unions and set differences and such. This is an algebra with three operations, in which case, you could also think of like complementation instead of set differences, you could take compliments, what have you? How do these things interact with each other? Well, you have distributive laws, that is intersections distribute over unions, unions distribute over intersections, in which case you also have the demorgan laws that connect set compliments with unions and intersections and such. There's all these conditions that allow the operations to co-mingle with each other. So the study of algebraic rings is in this same vein. That is, a ring is loosely speaking an algebraic set with two binary operations. And those two operations are always referred to as addition and multiplication, for which we'll use the standard plus symbol to denote addition, like you see right here. And for multiplication, we'll typically use juxtaposition for multiplication, but if we need to emphasize it, we might use like a little dot or a cross or something, the usual multiplication symbols here. And so we then for a ring, get the following eight axioms that are required for these binary operations. The set we'll call R, we have these binary operations. So again, addition is a binary operation, it's gonna be R cross R to R, right? Multiplication is a binary operation, we're gonna take R cross R to R, binary operations in their usual sense. So what do we require for these operations then to be a ring? We first require that addition be associative. That is to say that for any three elements of the ring, R, S and T, we have that R plus S plus T is equal to RS plus T. So we can re-associate with addition. The second axioms require that addition also be commutative. That is, for any elements R and S inside the ring, we have that R plus S equals S plus R. Whenever we use additive notation to describe an operation, it's always inferred that the operation is addition. Excuse me, the operation is commutative. If you ever had some type of non-commutative addition, you might be exiled from the mathematical community because it's just too taboo. Addition should always be commutative. Thirdly, we require that addition have an identity element. There must exist an element which is typically called zero, nearly it's always called zero inside of a ring, the additive identity. There exists an element zero inside the ring. So that's that if you take any other element in the ring, we have that R plus zero is equal to zero plus R, which is equal to R. So we have an additive identity. And then fourthly, we require that there be additive inverses. So for all elements R inside the ring, there exists an element which we call negative R. So we use negative notation to represent the additive inverse. So I don't mean negative R is negative one times R because up to this moment in the axioms, what does negative one even mean? We don't know. Negative R is just notation to describe the additive inverse of R. So for any element R, there is a negative R, so set R plus negative R is equal to negative R plus R, which equals zero. So if you look at just the first four axioms of a ring, this right here tells us that the structure, if we just look at addition, just addition, R plus this is gonna be an Abelian group. So addition in a ring always forms an Abelian group. It's commutative associative identities and inverses. Okay, so that's the type of structure that addition will have inside of a ring. What type of structure does multiplication have in a ring? Well, you get the fifth axiom, which is gonna be multiplicative associativity, which as we saw a moment ago with an additive associativity, since multiplication is associative and we take any three elements inside the ring, RS and T, we require associativity with multiplication. So we get R times ST is equal to RS times T, which I'm using the dot to emphasize multiplication right here, but typically we write this as R times ST is equal to RS times T, just the juxtaposition there. All right, and so when it comes to a ring, that's the only requirement we have on the multiplication, that multiplication is associative. In which case then, if you look at just R with the binary operation of multiplication, this gives us what we call a semi-group. We have this binary operations as associative, we do not have any requirement of inverses, we have no requirement about identity. Now, we often do care about rings that have extra structure on multiplication, but in those general sense, a ring only we require associativity. Now I do have to caution the viewer right here that there are some authors of algebra textbooks that do not even require associativity for multiplication in a ring. Now that sort of looser definition of a non-associative ring is not as common, especially not at the undergraduate level. I think it's quite universal that for undergraduate abstract algebra courses, rings are assumed to be associative, the multiplication. And if you don't specify, most people will infer that the ring multiplication is associative. If you want non-associative rings, you do need to specify that because by default that's not the case. So okay, the operation of addition forms an abelian group. The operation of multiplication forms a semi-group, right? So not a lot of structure is required for the multiplication, but like I was saying at the beginning of this video, we can't just stop there, we can't just have an abelian group and a semi-group. They have to somehow interact with each other. And in rings, that interaction comes from the distributive laws. And these are laws that we're probably quite used to, right? You have left distribution and right distribution, for which case the left distributive law says that for any elements R, S and T, if you take R times S plus T, that's the same thing as RS plus RT. We also have the right distributive laws would say that R plus S times T is equal to RT plus ST. So we can distribute on the left and the right in the usual sense. Now I do need to specify that when it comes to a ring, we do not assume that the multiplication is commutative. And therefore we do actually need a separate left and right distributive laws because if you had just left distribution and no community axiom whatsoever, you can't prove right distribution. You can have rings that are left distributive but not right distributive and vice versa. So we do need both distributive laws in order to make this thing work. Okay? Now, like I said earlier, that there's not a lot of axioms placed on the multiplication of a ring. We just require it's associative but maybe we want some extra axioms as well. And so furthermore, we could say that a ring is called a ring with unity if R is a ring which satisfies the additional axiom of a multiplicative identity. So if you have a ring which has a multiplicative identity, we call this a ring with unity. Unity here is a term used to describe the multiplicative identity of a ring. And following the convention we had before, that multiplicative identity is nearly always called one. The additive identity is zero, the multiplicative identity is equal to one. Now I do have to specify that when we talk about a ring with unity, we are assuming that the multiplicative identity that is the unity is distinct from the additive unity that is the additive identity, which is zero, right? We don't want one and zero to be the same thing. The only potential counter example, if we allowed zero to equal one, you would get the so-called zero ring, which the ring contains only one element which we call zero for which addition is obvious you get zero plus zero is equal to zero. We would also get that multiplication is obvious zero times zero has to equal zero for which that satisfies the normal condition that satisfies all the axioms above in a very trivial manner, right? This will be a ring, this is called the zero ring, right? For which the zero ring satisfies the eight axioms of a ring, it also satisfies axiom H here, it has a multiplicative identity will be zero. We don't call this a ring with unity though because we want to distinguish the zero ring from other rings with unity. We want the one and zero to be distinct elements. So the zero ring is excluded. And if we have a multiplicative identity, the unity here, it needs to satisfy that for any element R inside the ring, R times one equals one times R, which equals R. Additionally, we couldn't want that the multiplication of the ring be commutative. So we talk about a commutative ring. A commutative ring is a ring which satisfies the extra axiom of multiplicative commutivity that is for all elements of the ring, R times S is equal to S times R, all right? And so when you use the adjective commutative to describe a ring, you're describing the multiplication because with addition, addition is an appealing group, it's commutative. So if we talk about a commutative ring, we're saying multiplication is commutative. If we talk about rings with unity, we're saying that the multiplication has an identity because of course the addition will always have an identity. You can also combine these two together and you can talk about a commutative ring with unity, with unity here. So this would be a ring which the additive structure of course an appealing group, the multiplicative structure would be a commutative monoid because it has associativity identities and commutivity there. So it might be tempted that then to ask, well, could we also add the axiom of inverses to the multiplication? It gets a little bit more complicated because of how the distributive law looks. And we're gonna talk about how you can have inverses inside of multiplication. That is when is division possible. We'll talk about that in the next lecture or lecture 38 in our series. So we're gonna stick with just rings, commutative rings, rings with unity and commutative rings with unity for the time being. So let's consider some examples of rings that we've run across previously and either this lecture series on abstract algebra or perhaps previous algebra settings. So we've talked about the group structure of Z, Q, R and C with respect to addition. But these sets also have multiplication, multiplication that does distribute over the addition that we have. And so these are all examples, Z, Q, R and C are all examples of commutative rings with unity. Z has unity. It's the number one and it distributes, right? So you get Z, Q, R and C, these are all commutative rings with unity, right? They have a one, they have the multiplication, commutes, multiplications, associative, we have distributive laws, all that stuff. On the other hand, if you take the set of natural numbers, we know that the set of natural numbers cannot be a ring because as we've talked about with the group structure of addition, the natural numbers with respect to addition are not an abelian group because they're lacking inverses. Addition is commutative for the natural numbers that is associative. You have zero, the natural numbers include zero here. So you almost get an abelian group. With respect to addition, the natural numbers forms what we call a commutative semi-group, specifically it's a monoid because it's associative, there's an identity, it's commutative, but we don't necessarily have inverses whatsoever. Now, when it comes to N being a ring, the only thing missing is the additive inverses because addition is associative, commutative, you have zero, multiplication is associative, commutative, it has even unity, right, has the number one. The distributive laws hold the only thing that's missing here is that it doesn't have additive inverses. And so if you take the previous eight axioms of a ring and you remove the condition that addition has inverses, you actually get something called a semi-ring for which the natural numbers form a semi-ring. And in fact, this will form a commutative semi-ring with unity. So it's really close to being a commutative ring with unity, but you don't have inverses for most of the natural numbers, in fact, because you don't have negative numbers. That's the main difference there with the natural numbers as close to the integers. So the natural numbers are not a ring, it's a semi-ring at best. So let's next consider some subgroups of the integers, right? So if you pick your favorite integer, then the usual notation, Nz, will represent all the multiples of N inside of z right there. So for example, 2z, this would be all the even numbers, so you're getting like negative six, negative four, negative two, zero, two, four, six, eight, right? Who do we appreciate? So 2z is just the set of all even numbers, 3z would be all the multiples of three, 4z is all the multiple of four. We've seen this notation before. Now it turns out that Nz is in fact a commutative ring, but it doesn't have unity, assuming N is not plus or minus one. If it's plus or minus one, this is just the ring of integers as usual. So let's think about it. In terms of addition, this is going to be an amelian group. In fact, it's a cyclic group. With respect to multiplication, multiplication is associative because it's just integer multiplication. Multiplication is commutative because it's just integer multiplication. It's distributive because again, this is just the operations of usual integers inside the field of real numbers. What's lacking though is an identity, a multiplicative identity that that is the unity, right? Because if you take these numbers here, like the product of any two even numbers is going to be even, that part's still the same. Distributive, associative, commutative, we get all of that stuff for the operations of addition and multiplication. But there is no number, right? There is no even number, which if I take two times x, I'm gonna equal two, right? There's no even integer that does that because in the integer system, right? If you're thinking about this in the integer, you could cancel out the two and you get x equals one, but one is not inside of two z. So there is no even integer that acts like a unity here. So this is a commutative ring without unity. Let's look at another example of rings that we've run across previously in our lecture series here. If you take your favorite integer n, then consider the set in z, zn, excuse me. And so I guess we probably should specify that n is actually a positive integer in this situation. The set of congruence classes mod n forms a ring under modular addition and modular multiplication, which we've talked about these things in isolation, right? We've talked about the group nz, n, excuse me, comma plus, right? So this would be a cyclic group of order n. We've also talked about the group zn star with respect to multiplication where the star, we just take those elements which have multiplicative inverses, which have reciprocals, because that makes a group. But we could relax and talk about nz, multiplication, right? This wouldn't make a group anymore with respect to multiplication because not every element has an inverse, but that's okay in a ring. We don't require that every element has a multiplicative inverse. So if you put modular addition and modular multiplication together, you're gonna form a commutative ring with unity. And this then gives us an infinite family of finite rings.


fixed intervals. The only thing that pops into my head when we think of fixed intervals, or when I think of fixed intervals, is a poorly drawn set of waves at the beach, right? So when you get the beach, it's an old cartoon behavior analyst sitting there and you got a really bad line drawing of waves and it kind of goes up and down.  It's this behavior analyst at the beach. It wasn't funny then and it's not funny now. I'm well aware, but hopefully you got the idea that a fixed interval produces a cumulative record that looks like a scallop, right? Like that. Why? Well, because the definition of a fixed interval is simple. It is the first response after a given amount of time will be reinforced. So if you have an FR 10 minute, so the first response, whatever that may be, after 10 minutes will receive a reinforcer, right? A good example that's been overused and all continue to overuse it because life is so full of really simple, complex behavior issues, right? Schedules of reinforcement, whatever you want to call them. Anyway, so life is so full of these things that it gets hard to separate them out. So I think my favorite example is waiting for the bus, right? So the bus is supposed to be there at a fixed time, right? So you start looking for that bus right before it gets there. And but the only the only response that's actually reinforced is the one that when you look up after the bus arrives that we can actually step on the bus rather than getting run over, which is not a generalized condition punisher. So anyway, so you look at the so the first response after a given amount of time is reinforced.


Okay, hi everyone. I'm Jimmy MacArthur with the OpenStack Foundation, so I'm here to talk about the new and exciting and upgraded COA exam. We're very excited to have an ecosystem partner join us in helping to put on the the COA. So big thanks to to Marantis for collaborating with us and helping us put the exam together. So this is a new exam but it's obviously still based on OpenStack. The idea for the COA is to offer a career path for OpenStack and open-source professionals. The exam shouldn't have changed too much over time from from the previous version. However, there's some some new twists that I'll go over that and and we're excited to offer the COA. So this is what you're after. The certified OpenStack administrator certificate and this is actually the only certified OpenStack exam and there are a lot of training partners that can help you get it. So I will go over a few other things. Why take the COA? It's recognized industry certification since 2016. We have been working on the some version of the exam and it's skills-based. Obviously you need to understand OpenStack. You need to understand how to work with the CLI. You need to understand how to work with Horizon and the dashboard and it helps set the level of expectation for OpenStack skills of the community. So it's also vendor-neutral. So although we are partnering with Marantis, the exam itself is vendor-neutral and we have lots of training partners out there in the ecosystem that are helping us put helping train people to take the exam and once you take it, it proves that you can administer OpenStack. What we're looking at normally is people that have at least six months experience working and managing with OpenStack and and finally we can provide some assurance that certificate holders have the skills, knowledge and competency that you may be looking for in an employee or a co-worker. What does COA cover? Well I'm so glad I asked. It covers all of these things. So these are the projects that you would want to study up on. Kisto Nova, Glantz, Neutron, Sender, Swift, Horizon. The OpenStack client for more information on this you can go to openstack.org slash COA slash requirements to find out more about what's needed for the exam and also have some helpful links towards the end that you can get some more information about what you need to do to study up. Now what's different in this version? A couple of things. The exam is now using the Rocky release so that's an upgrade from yeah from Pike so a bit of a difference. It's also a closed book exam. In the past the COA we allowed people to use docs.openstack.org as they were taking the exam. That's no longer the case so the reason for that being we want to ensure that people are well prepared for the exam and hopefully any training that you do would help prepare you for that so that you don't need to actually access the docs as you're going. We encourage test takers to read instructions carefully so we're no longer allowing cut and paste from the exam itself back into the answers. And switching between CLI and Horizon so basically you need to be able to use the dashboard or command line for almost anything on the test. So be prepared for that. Again if you've never taken the exam none of these things will really make any difference to you but if you have and you're familiar with it these are some of the things that you would be looking for. Preparation and training. So practice. Hopefully you can go through our docs and try to install OpenStack yourself or perhaps you already worked for a company that's allowing you to start work on OpenStack but the best way you can do it is to try install and manage your own OpenStack instance. And if needed you can use a tool such as DevStack but the idea is that when you're preparing for the COA that you're prepared to use any distribution or that you're prepared to basically run OpenStack on your own or with a friend. And finally take a course with one of our training partners. So it's all these fine folks. And you can go to our website which is opensack.org slash marketplace slash training and look for the COA logo. So any of these companies should have it but you'll see courses scheduled on there and lots of different classes and options online courses and in-person courses. Tips and useful resources. So these are some of the links I was talking about. Where do you sign up? You go to opensack.org slash COA and you could sign up for the exam. The extended version of the COA overview can be found on this YouTube link. What? And finally, Morantis has helpfully put up a blog post with tips for the new COA as well. So if you have any questions or comments I'm happy to answer them after the talk but that is it for me. Thanks.


Reactions to Suffering Suffering. We can't avoid it, no matter how hard we try. Between the poor, homeless, and sick, suffering is all around us. We like to think we take it in stride, but how do we really react to it? If you saw an older man shivering on a curb with only a thin blanket and old clothing, you'd most likely feel bad, but you'd keep walking. We all feel the pain of seeing this older gentleman look as though he might not make the night, but seldom stop and do anything. Our reactions are what make us who we are, both individually and as a species. Naturally, mankind is sympathetic to the pain and suffering of others. Psychologist Edward Titchiner translated the German word Einfellung, meaning feeling into, into English in 1909, turning into the word most of us know today as empathy. However, feeling bad for somebody is not empathy, despite what most people think. The feelings we get are instead a mixture of other emotions. What's the breakdown of some of these emotions? Pity is often distress, discomfort, and overall sadness when witnessing someone else's misery. If you were to see someone yelling at their significant other, you will most likely feel sad for them and look on for a few seconds before moving on. Pity is the acknowledgement of another's pain and that you feel bad for them, but pity does not go beyond this. Like-bait is another example of pity, where someone online posts a photo or video to make their viewers feel bad and at the end says, like, repost, reblog, retweet, share if you understand X's pain and want to help. Of course, a like won't help their suffering. It's just helping the poster by giving them likes on something they posted. Sympathy is the physical display of pity and hoping that the person will be relieved of that pain or suffering. It is caring about the well-being of somebody without personally knowing the struggle. You try to understand by putting yourself in their shoes. Empathy is both caring and personally knowing the struggle the other person is going through. Remember, personally knowing is not always paired with caring, which means it is not true empathy. This is evident in psychopaths. You have to have personal experience and care in order to empathize. Compassion is either empathy or sympathy paired with a desire to relieve that person of their pain. With compassion, you actively seek a solution. You do something with your sympathy or empathy rather than just walking away. It must be noted that altruism is very different from empathy, sympathy, pity, and compassion. When someone acts altruistically, they are acting on the basis that it is the right thing to do, not because they feel bad. Altruism can be detached and emotionless as it is not buried in personal emotions, only in doing the perceived right thing. One way that altruism can backfire is being ignorant of pain, not understanding the problem but trying to fix it anyway. A good example of this is replacing a child's old broken toy that holds memories because you believe it is the right thing to do. However, by replacing this toy, you are tossing out all the memories they have attached to that toy. So, if you were to see that same old man shivering, what would your reaction be? Pity, sympathy, empathy? Would you give him another blanket out of altruism or out of compassion? Write your answers below, and don't forget to subscribe for more videos about human emotions.