Thanks for checking out this no spoilers movie review. This is for the 2015 film Hell House LLC And it's a pretty independent film from what I can gather when I'm doing this review It is available for streaming on the shutter streaming service Which is for horror and all that if you don't know about shutter check it out I don't have any real affiliation or anything like that. I just really like it. So just saying alright So let's talk about Hell House LLC I am gonna give you a little bit of a disclaimer before I really start getting into it though Keep in mind when I'm doing this review I'm not a person who really particularly likes found footage films. There are some I really do like like I think paranormal Activity is really good. I actually didn't really like the Blair Witch project I know some people hearing that are probably like oh my gosh But the problem with that is I didn't see the Blair Witch project when it originally came out I saw it many years later. So there I had already seen other found footage films So had I seen Blair Witch project when it came out initially then I probably would feel differently But I'm not big on found footage So know that and view it through that lens as you hear me doing this review So Hell House LLC was written and directed by Steven Cognetti There have been two sequels as well. So I think the third one just came out kind of recently Maybe this year. I think it was this year So from what I've heard a lot of people are like they really like the first Hell House They they like the second one and I'm not hearing very good things about the third one Some people are like, oh, I kind of liked it. So all right, you know You'd have to make up your own mind and I gotta be honest. I spoilers Spoilers as far as how I feel about the film. I don't think I'm gonna see the second or third Although if people really want me to put a comment down there and let me know then for the audience I would check out the second and third they They both are available on shutter right now. So I could I just you know found footage So this was originally released on a few video on-demand platforms, that's how it was done This isn't a theatrical Film or anything like that, you know, it's very low budget Which you know a lot of found footage films are low budget and to be honest It's smart to do found footage style if you are a low-budget operation or no budget really so It's just a really easy thing to do. Well, I guess I can't say easy film in general is not easy It is easier to do than trying to make it look very cinematic and Theatrical and stuff like that and it's much cheaper. So for people who are low-budget or no-budget it makes sense So I understand it So this was originally supposed to be in a house and an actual house But they couldn't actually find a suitable house for what they were looking for So in the end they ended up going with a location in Lehighton, Pennsylvania called the haunting at the Waldorf Hotel, so I believe it is actually a One of those like oh my god, why am I blanking on it right now? So terrible haunted house like one of the haunted house ordeals, which is what this whole film is centered around It's not a spoiler that's in there, you know little log line synopsis ordeal that it is Basically Something goes wrong at a haunted house attraction, you know so it's good that they were actually shooting at a haunted house attraction and I think it helped a lot with kind of set design because things were kind of already set up in an interesting way and To be honest, I like the premise of this I like the idea of doing a found footage film with a haunted attraction as the setting it gives a lot of Possibilities to it and it also is is a situation where it can really blur the lines of like what truly is Something real going on versus something that's staged that's part of the attraction itself and for that reason I think it is a good idea because You could see in real life that becoming a problem if there were actually a situation Where something terrible really did happen and and at one of these haunted attractions that it might be hard for people to decipher At the moment that it's happening if it's real or not because you're supposed to be seeing terrible things So something terrible actually happens. You might be like, oh, this is all a part of the ordeal So it works as a concept. I Just didn't particularly like how it was executed. Sorry It definitely looks creepy though the the location they chose was very very good I think it really really worked. It looked creepy. It looked like it was potentially scary I think they did a pretty good job with kind of dressing it up and making it look like the haunted attraction that they were Trying to make it look like but also even before they did that how they made it look just like old dilapidated and unused That just kind of added to the ambiance um So, okay, so this is where I'm gonna talk about one of my issues with found footage films in general and that's at play here So it's not necessarily like their fault. It's just one of the problems I have with found footage in general and it kind of happens with a lot of them That there's a lot of time wasting that ends up being built into this style of film Like you literally have to waste a lot of time because you have to have a lot of realistic dialogue between people You have to have kind of that downtime real life in between what's actually going on and It it feels like it drags a lot of the time because you have to do that in order to make it feel Realistic because the found footage the whole premise obviously is that it it's found footage It's real life.  It has to be Right it has to feel right so in order to do that you're kind of Sacrificing pacing of the film and that's one of the things that really gets to me. I'm big on pacing with films I really don't like it when it feels like it's just really dragging And that's kind of one of the main things that found footage does like it literally will make a drag Like I cannot watch the Blair Witch project. I watched it once not super long ago And I was just like it just drags drags drags drags. Yes, there's a cool moment at the end But it's like I had to sit through how much in order to get there. I'm not doing this again. It's very historically important, but It doesn't hold up That's my opinion and found footage in general a lot of times does not hold up in my opinion So anyway, that's my issue with found footage in general So it also ends up being a lot of heavy breathing in a lot of these films, you know, because people were running from things and there's like That's something that bothers me a lot in films when it's just like heavy breathing and people running and When there's a lot of it like you get you can choose to cut some of that down or a lot of that down But if bothers me even more by the way when it's in films that are not found footage and a prime example of that Is the movie Gravity with Sandra Bullock? That movie is terrible. First of all, it's terrible second of all, I mean it looks amazing, but as an actual film it's terrible, but So much heavy breathing in that and it's not found footage totally Inexcusable sorry side tangent The setup with this with the text and the news coverage that they started with Whoops Sorry messed up my notes So the setup with the text and news coverage like that's the first thing they start with Actually is a really good way to kind of grab your attention. It makes you really want to know more It's kind of it makes it more intriguing as a start instead of starting with some of the found footage stuff and just being like Not knowing where things are going To kind of like have the aftermath in the beginning Really peaks interest and you're just like okay now. I'm very interested something terrible went down I really need to know so that kind of keeps your interest peaked, which I really I like that idea The found footage approach works for lower budget because of the POV Which doesn't have to show Super nice shots and it also doesn't have to show a lot of detail. That's another big thing so another one of these strengths for low budget with or no budget with with the found footage is that You can take props and you can take costumes that don't necessarily look that good and Put them in there and make them look good because you can just not show them for a lot of time or the lighting is bad and it's believable because it's a real-life situation and the lighting is not always going to be good and it's You know the shots aren't really going to be framed per se. So found footage works quite well for that and I think they did a pretty good job when they put things in there of Making that work to their advantage. So they pulled it off in that respect This does remind me a little bit of a movie. I watched not long ago long ago called the funhouse massacre Which actually came out the same year was also a 2015 film So nobody copied the other because they came out at the same time, but it was the same type of thing It's like this question of what happens when people go into a haunted house attraction And they think everything is staged and it's not necessarily staged that one's fun I like that. It's not a great film, but it's a fun film. I would recommend that the funhouse massacre And if you've seen it put a comment down there Let me know your thoughts because I know they're probably some people are like and some people are like, yeah The concept makes sense because in a haunted house, you'd be confused as to what's fake and real already covered that. Sorry Okay, here's a here's something I thought about that. I'm not sure a lot of people think about when they're watching this movie People know what an LLC is like people know Hell House LLC like they know an LLC means it's like a company But thinking about what it actually means spelled out limited liability company is Important to kind of give you in the title an idea that something's going to go wrong It's kind of a foreshadowing of a sort So think about that limited liability company It kind of says hey, we're not liable for Terrible things going down and that's what happens obviously otherwise it wouldn't be a movie The dialogue actually seems pretty realistic in this now I don't know if they went ahead and scripted a lot of the dialogue or all the dialogue or if they just went with a lot of improv I know with some of the found footage films They'll they'll kind of let people do a lot of improv if they really trust the actors I know Blair Witch actually was that way there was a ton of improv involved and it's good and it's bad because The improv is the improvisation can make the dialogue even more meandering But it also makes it seem more Realistic and it has a better flow to it as far as like real-life conversation. So there's kind of like a good and a bad It just gets like super super drawn out. I feel like when it's not scripted. So You know, it's a give or take like you got to figure out for your film If you're doing found footage like what do you want? Do you want it to move better or do you want it to be more realistic? So it's kind of a balancing act in my opinion, but I don't know what they did for this film But I felt like the dialogue felt pretty realistic. But like I also said, it felt like it was very long and drawn out and just pacing suffered a lot So I don't understand how they shot some of their interview portions Which by the way, though we're overwhelming majority of the film was shot at that location in Pennsylvania I was talking about but the interviews almost all the interviews were actually shot in New York and I don't understand why they chose to shoot some of the interviews the way they did Because a bunch a bunch of the interview portions look good Like they look normal like they're just showing a person kind of like from here up and they're talking to the camera But then they have these shots where they they go way in on the person's face We're actually like I'll see if I can like it'll be like an unit like Sorry if that gets like super loud, but like that, you know Like where they were the cutting the top of the person's head off Sometimes cutting the top and and like a portion of the bottom of the head off You're just like so close in on the face And I don't know when people started doing this because I see it from time to time now and Stylistically, I think it looks terrible. Whenever I see that it makes me like Subconsciously like move my head back because it's like dude. You're too close move back Come on like it's not a good idea. I don't I don't know why we're doing this anymore So it's a small thing in this film because there's not like a ton of those interview portions But it's just something that irks me when people do it. I just don't understand why you would it doesn't make sense There's something in this film that is ripped Basically straight out of the Blair witch project it and it's not in the end or anything like that So it but if you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about If you haven't seen the film and you're going to see the film You will know what I'm talking about kind of it's it's something that's ripped straight from it But the context isn't exactly the same. So just think about that and you'll know what I'm talking about There are hints about the origin of what's actually going on within this film within the dialogue And I like that aspect about it I like that they're they don't kind of be like that they're not just like here's the origin of what's happening It's all explained in some text on the screen or in a news Interview or coverage or whatever that you have to piece it together a little bit through the dialogue Which makes sure you really have to pay attention To what people are saying which with a film like this like I was saying how like a lot of it can be improvised It's kind of like, you know, just small chit-chat people can tend to like not pay attention or just like gloss over it But in this case you have to pay attention because then you get those little tidbits You can kind of put that together and I like that about this and I think it's nice that You know, I can piece together the backstory on what's actually happening or like why what why it's happening. So so overall I Felt like I understand why people like this if you're into found footage films But for me, I was kind of about the movie and like I said, I don't have a desire to see the second one or the third one But I would if people really want me to review them. So let me know in the comments but You know, I mean, I think they did a good job for being low to no budget. It's fine. So All those things considered with my five star scale with half stars in play I'm gonna put it in a two and a half for me personally I want to put it at a two, but I feel like I should give it a two and a half to make it right in the middle because of my Distaste for the found footage style in general Just saying so Anyway, um, I do appreciate everyone checking this one out. We'll have to see what I end up reviewing next Please hit that subscribe. That's the way you can repay me. I don't make money on this is just something I'm doing for fun but I want to get it out there to the masses and I want to have Some chats with people about horror in general because I'm a horror nerd I don't get to talk about a lot of people or I don't get to talk about a lot of horror with people around where I live because I don't know that many people were super into it So that's why that's part of why I'm doing these videos because I want to get some conversations going. So let's talk Let's talk about this. Let's talk about other stuff Please hit that subscribe though because that's your the way you can repay me takes you like a second and Totally painless, but thanks for checking this out and until next time keep it brutal


Folks, this is Tom O'Brien of TFNN, we've got five days a week, we go seven hours a day, we go 24 hours a day on the internet at TFNN.com. Always remember folks, whatever you think about, you bring about whatever you focus on grows, hope everyone's having a great day, safe day, let's make it a great night folks, and a great week. Love coming out of you makes you happy. The whole world can love you, but that's not what makes you happy, what will make you happy is to share all the love you have inside of you. That is the love. That'll make the difference. Mug it wise, let's take a look at it out here. We have the Dow Industries up 116, Aztec up 20, S&Ps up 14.5, Gold, Gold contract down $17, trade $19.97 an ounce. We have Silver down 12 cents, $23.15 an ounce, Light Sweet Crude flat, $71.33 a barrel, notes and bonds. A 10-year note. Up to ticks, trading 110, 30-year flat, $18.31 a king dollar. King dollar right now trading up 100, no trading up 82 ticks, 104.092, Euro 107, yen 146, British pound 125 to one US dollar. Our phone number's<PHONE_NUMBER>, give us a call folks, one note's going on in your world. In the world of the S&Ps. Let's take a look at them. What do you have? Well, we've been dealing with this ABC structure folks and the bottom line is that we're right next to it right now. So, my take is that we're actually going to the highs, but bottom line 462 is the number. Right now we've hit 461.85 thus far, this back up just continues to want higher price. We had a big expansion on volume on Friday too by the way folks, okay? So the bottom line is that, you know, higher prices are coming at us. We take a look at this. Let's just bring this back in. Yeah, yeah, right there, okay. So once you launch this area, man, you know, bottom line, the only thing that's left is the highs. So it comes down to here at 461, you know, now the S&Ps 479 is quite away from, you know, from this area, but the bottom line is that, you know, when you launch one area and you only have highs left, that's where it wants to go. So we take a look at the MDX 100, we take a look at the MDX and the bottom line is that this is a wide price spread inside this MDX out here today, man, and you're going to get some volume behind the move. You know, so the last high that we had up here that was established, bottom line is that we're taking that swing point out and we're taking it out with volume. So what does happen is this, now this gets interesting, okay? Because it's like, okay, there's an ABC up, but what does happen folks is that when you do an ABC, the A point, if you have a gap, the A point, you know, you'd go above the gap, that's how it works. So, you know, on a weekly, let's get interesting, let's look at this on a weekly and see what happens here. So on a weekly, there she is, on a weekly, you did an ABC up, yep, I'll get these numbers when I come back, you did an ABC, oh, no, no, I see what's going on, okay, we're taking the B point out this week. That's what we're doing. So you're not going to need a lot of volume for an ABC up and there's enough happening out here this week because you get the CPI tomorrow, you get the Fed on Wednesday. Gold, now let's go to the gold market because this is dicey, man, okay? So you had the total breakout on gold. You have, you're coming down with one point, you know, with 148,000 contracts. It hasn't held the price. So November 21st is one of your actually key points to look at because it had a sign of strength. Now it hasn't held, so that's saying that gold can get all the way down to the very end of this consolidation. You know, right now you're in 1997, we're talking about a 1955 level there. If we go to the GDX, let's take a look at the GDX because what you had out here is that, you know, it took four times up, okay, so this is good in the GDX. So I like this, okay, this is what we needed. Okay, so in the GDX, you're down to the same point, you're down to the strength. You only get 12 million shares traded. It did reject 2908, that's a good number, man, okay? We're going to have action. That's what we needed this out here today, folks, okay? Because the bottom line is that you have, right where the 28th is, you also, you can come back on the other side with the last time that we went up and we tried to take out that consolidation going all the way back to the beginning of November, was it the beginning of November, what is that, November or the end of October. So that's a start, that's a start. You want to see this thing get in the higher range once again, that's what we need. And then if we go, notes and bonds are going with us. What you have with the note and bond market is you got the rejection of lower price. Friday it came down, let's see what we did out here. Yeah, you can see the contraction, the contraction is pretty amazing. We did 2.1 million on Friday but you were going into 2.7 contract wise. This morning we did 1.2, you've already rejected lower price, so higher prices are coming at us there. You have the 10 year right now yielding 4.239. And then if we get over to good old King Dala, we take a look at King Dala. King Dala's having a hard time basically getting, even getting to the point 3A2. That being said now, the bottom line, the longer that you lay out here, you can see King Dala's laying right under a point 3A2 retracement. Hasn't been able to make it, the last four trading days, it gets up, gets close and then just gives it up at the close. So we'll see if that's exactly what is going to basically come down today. Dow, Dow Industrial's bottom line is that you got the highs of game out here, man. We're at 30, and you gotta remember something that we talked about this last week. The DAX already took out its highs, all-time highs, the DAX in Germany. It's very unusual folks, okay? That the DAX would take out all-time highs and our S&P as well as our industrials and the NASDAQ won't. Oh no, it didn't hold it. No, no, no, one second, hold it. Yes, it did. I just pulled the wrong one out, was it? DAX and DAX. Yeah, look at this. I mean, normally it took them out. Now you're getting away from the highs. Say right there folks, come back with our man, Mr. Steve Rhodes.


A few weeks ago, a little gem, a film was exclusive to Hulu and I don't think many knew about it. A lot of people slept on this one and that's kind of the problem with these exclusive app films are a lot of people aren't going to see them or even know they exist to begin with. I mean, we have Netflix, we have Hulu, we have Apple TV, we have HBO Max, we have HBO Snacks, we have Disney Plus, we have Disney Plus Plus, we have Amazon Prime, we have Amazon Optimus Prime. There's so many iterations on top of iterations that I don't even know which ones are true anymore and which ones I just made up on the spot that a corporation is probably going to take and use. The film I'm referring to is Palm Springs. I was a long walk to get to that intro. Andy Samberg and Kristen Miliati star in this Groundhog's Day extravaganza. If I said Kristen's last name wrong, don't blame me. I looked up like 17 YouTube videos where she was on late night shows and I waited for the host to say her last name and it never came. I either caught just clips here and there or the intros were botched and they just said her first name. Hell, I even watched a video with her and Andy on it where they introduced themselves and as she said her last name, the feed kind of got all jarbled and they talked over each other. So I apologize if the last name is incorrectly said. What I won't apologize for are my opinions on movies such as this one, which in this case turns out to be pretty positive. In fact, my biggest hang up with the movie is the title itself, Palm Springs. Maybe the worst title ever given to a film in history ever. Maybe there's a play on words with the title and I'm just too dense to understand it, but I don't think the script is that profound that it's really putting a lot of thought into it. The thing that was nice about the Bill Murray Vehicle Groundhog's Day was there was really no explanation for the event that occurs, why he keeps reliving the same day. It could kind of go along with the flow. It could have had something to do with the Groundhog not seeing its shadow or seeing its shadow or whatever that thing is supposed to do. It could just be because Bill Murray's character is kind of a piece of crap and he needed to get better. It didn't matter. It was all kind of nonsense anyways, just to get to the comedy. Here though, the Palm Springs repetition is really kind of the meat of the film. Kristen's character, Sarah, is really hung up on this. She can't understand why the days are repeating and she goes to the extremes to figure it out. And the ending, not really a cliffhanger, but the unsolved mystery ending is one that kind of makes you wonder, like, is this Christopher Nolan level stuff or is this just kind of thrown at the wall and let the audience decide for themselves Donnie Darko sort of affair? And I think it's the latter. I think it's the latter. I've been told I don't enunciate my teas well. I'm from Minnesota. JK Simmons is also here to class up the joint. Really though, it's an Andy Kristen affair. If you're looking for a straight comedy, purified, crystallized in its natural form, that's not really this. There are good laughs to be had for sure. Although I'd say this is more of a almost borderline dramedy, a dramedy that has a bit of a dark sci-fi twist to it. Although it doesn't quite go as deep into the sci-fi realm as I would have liked it to.  We got dinosaurs in this for a tiny bit of time. Spoiler, I guess, but this has been out for a month. So I think if you're watching a review of Palm Springs, you're just kind of wondering what I thought as opposed to what you thought. I guess I have two qualms with the picture, the first being the title, the second being I guess a more realistic annoyance for me. And this could once again be just me being dense and not understanding some sort of a layered commentary behind it.  I don't know what it is. I don't think there's no tomorrow. And while it's funny, you know, like a frat boy American pious sort of way. After about 20 minutes, I'm just kind of sick of Andy Sandberg drinking. Obviously I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel here. What did I like though? Well, first off visually, it's very pretty. I love the aesthetic feel of it. I love the wide shots. I love the color. Obviously Andy and Kristen are very likable and they have fantastic chemistry together. Kristen's hilarious. Andy goes without saying he's been doing comedy for a long time. But Kristen, you know, she comes from like Sopranos and that one weird episode of Black Mirror. That's redundant. They're all weird. And she was the she got a bum rap on How I Met Your Mother. I believe that I believe she was the alleged mother. I mean, she was the mother. She was she was the mother. Come to think of it, How I Met Your Mother had a bit of a Palm Springs as well. They I know when the DVD came out, they released an alternate ending that was basically an apology to the fans. And they just had Ted end up with Kristen's character the whole time. No, no, no leukemia or or whatever she had spoiler on How I Met Your Mother from like a decade ago. Another huge pro is the music. Very synth heavy. It's got that cool bassy synth wave stuff going on, which has made a huge comeback thanks to, you know, shows like Stranger Things. So I'm just glad it's here. I've always been a fan. To surface level, the plot Niles keeps reliving the same day over and over again. He keeps going to this wedding. He keeps hanging out by the pool and he keeps falling in love with the same girl. There are a few twists and turns along the way to keep you interested. Good humor, as I said. And this is just an all around well made film.  I do think to get it to like an upper quality movie that I would go back to over and over again, they needed to push the sci-fi a little heavier for me. Go a little bit more extreme with the jokes.  I think going a little bit darker with the film would have helped it. As it stands, though, you could do a lot worse than watching this on a rainy afternoon. I definitely would recommend it. If you have Hulu, if not, maybe it's other places. Like I said, it took me, it took me like a dozen or so videos to still maybe not get the actress's name right. I am certainly not going to check to see if this film is available anywhere else. That's, that's the review and that's the review. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't. Thanks for watching the video. I try to put out new stuff on a weekly basis, so make sure to subscribe if you haven't already. I have a second channel full of more shenanigans and I'm also on Twitch now. So there's a lot of variety, a lot of options, and hopefully you can find these channels via links on this video itself, if I did my job correctly. Otherwise they might be in the description below or you can just visit the channel page. Alright, take care.


North Korea says U.S. drills amount to declaration of war. North Korea has warned that it will soon consider U.S. military action near its borders as a declaration of war, issuing a harsh response after American diplomats pressed the United Nations to condemn recent weapons tests by the DPRK. Senior Foreign Ministry official Kwon Jung-yeon, who oversees U.S. affairs, issued a statement to strongly protest a U.N. Security Council meeting held earlier this week, where Washington proposed a measure to denounce Pyongyang's latest ballistic missile launches. Such a move would be a clear violation of our state's rights to self-defense, Kwon said, adding if the U.N. Security Council sincerely intends to contribute to ensuring peace and security on the Korean peninsula, it will have to condemn acts that escalate military tension, such as the deployment of strategic assets and large-scale joint military exercises between the United States and South Korea. The official went on to say these actions have largely been ignored by the international community. Warning of strong countermeasures should North Korea's concerns continue to go unheeded. It should be borne in mind that if the U.S. continues its hostile and provocative practices against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, despite our repeated protests and warnings, it could be regarded as a declaration of war. At the U.N. meeting on Monday, U.S. envoy Linda Thomas Greenfield scolded the Security Council for its alleged lack of action in response to North Korean arms tests, calling it dangerous and worse than shameful. She pressured the body to adopt a formal presidential statement, which does not amount to a legally binding resolution to condemn last missile launches. The recent weapons tests prompted several rounds of military exercises by the United States, South Korea and Japan, with Washington and Seoul carrying out combined air drills on Sunday, followed by three-way naval exercises in the Sea of Japan. A tabletop simulation involving South Korean officials was also held in the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, during which Pyongyang said it fired off long-range cruise missiles. The tit-for-tat military action underscores soaring tensions on the Korean Peninsula over the last year, with North Korea carrying out a record number of missile tests amid a flurry of joint war games led by the Pentagon. The DPRK has repeatedly condemned the drills as rehearsals for an invasion and argues its missiles program is intended for self-defense, while Washington continues to press North Korea to abandon its nuclear arsenal.


Welcome to First Time Watching. Today I'm going to explain a Turkish decent comedy drama movie released in 2023 titled O Belinda. Dilara appears in a music video that is launched at the start of the film. She is officially the movie industry star and nothing can stop her from rising, according to the song video. She is ecstatic about what she has accomplished thus far. Serkan is her boyfriend and they are very in love with one another. He always lets Dilara know that she is the love of his life despite the fact that she has suspicions about his having an affair with Arzu, her business rival. Dilara receives an invitation to appear in a shampoo commercial for the Belinda brand. The script she receives makes her laugh aloud because it features a detailed scene starring a housewife named Handan who finds comfort and tranquility after a stressful day at work while bathing her hair. Dilara thinks the concept of the advertisement is absurd because there is no reason why the brand would want to incorporate a lengthy narrative. When she learns that abandoning the advertisement would be expensive she makes an attempt to stop but she persists in finishing it. This does not alter her character as she seems me as someone who is both proud of her place in the film industry and aware of her ability to work hard. Dilara believes she is a talented person and she won't allow anyone to make her feel guilty about her accomplishment. Dilara is furious with the male actor who will be appearing alongside her while she is on the commercial shoot. He has an unsettling touch. The ad director worries that Dilara won't get it right as she gets ready for a significant bathroom scene in which she is seen washing her hair with Belinda shampoo. Finally the director goes into great detail about what he wants her to accomplish in the role of Handan, the star of the commercial. Finally adopting the persona of the character Dilara follows the director's instructions washing her hair completely while closing her eyes. She opens her eyes to discover that she is not on the set of the commercial but rather in another location. Dilara is unsure of what transpired but she must determine whether there was a change in venue that she was unaware of. Dilara notices she is at someone else's house as soon as she opens her eyes. She doesn't know how she got there and the location seems alien to her. Dilara doesn't understand how she ended herself here after being on the other set. She is having trouble making sense of what just happened to her. Dilara is aware that she needs to return to her set as soon as she enters this house. She begins to be addressed as Handan by Neketi, her on-camera spouse, and they begin speaking as if they had been wed for a long time. It appears to be a well-planned practical joke on Dilara who is unsure of what is going on. Neketi is adamant that they are wed and have been for a long time, she has been Handan's wife. With the change in the scenario, Dilara is not adjusting as swiftly. In an effort to gain clarification from Serkin, she rushes to him. But it turns out that he does not recognize her and that he is currently wed to Arzu, her rival. She has just entered Serkin's house and to him, she is an invader. Dilara's life has taken a complete turn for the worse and there is no way for her to return to the time when she was a well-known actress. Also, she eventually runs into several of her film industry colleagues, but nobody knows who she is.  She is the most attractive lady he has ever seen in his opinion and he finds himself constantly reaching out to touch her. She is extremely terrified by this and Dilara must now use her position as Handan to ensure that Neketi is kept at a distance. She has two children with this husband and she is aware of the fact that she now has more challenges because, as Neketi's wife, she is supposed to be a homemaker who looks for the family and the home as well as the children. She has assimilated into the typical household and has no idea how to escape it. She struggles to deal with the kids, her husband, and his family because they are all bugging her non-stop. She explores a number of solutions in her quest to escape this situation, but she ultimately comes to a standstill. She quickly learns that Handan, as indicated in the post, also works for a bank and when she arrives to her place of employment, she discovers that she is having an affair with Akif, her supervisor, and her brother-in-law there. Dilara observes as Handan learns that Akif and her have embezzled a sizable sum of money from the bank and he is expecting her to return it. As everything that has happened to Dilara thus far has impacted her memory, she is unsure of where the bag has been kept. In her bedroom, she discovers some cash which she decides to keep for herself because, well, why not? Dilara is aware that the only way she can rejoin Sergan is to contact him and join the acting world once more because this is what she has always loved. When she first meets Sergan, she discovers that he is in fact a playboy who will sex her without thinking twice. She takes advantage of the chance to introduce her to the theatrical company where she ends up giving a standout audition. Dilara, as Handan is known, is delighted to have entered her sphere of interest and begins devoting a lot of time to the play's rehearsals. Dilara is aware that returning to acting would allow her to improve her relationship with Sergan. Sadly, Dilara encounters an accident that results in her car harming public property. She is ultimately given a warning by the police for the mishap and as a result, she is unable to attend the play's final dress rehearsals. She lost a significant role because of her accident which would have been another opportunity for her to establish her acting prowess. When she arrives at the performance location on the day of the play, she is informed that a junior has taken her spot. Dilara is furious with her misfortune and rushes to the Corniche with a bag of cash she had received from Akif. She throws the cash up there for everyone to enjoy. Money that represented the corrupt version of herself is no longer there. The rain is pouring down heavily in the city at the final scene and Dilara is content knowing that the money is gone and she will likely have to accept this existence after all. Dilara opens her eyes to see that she is back on the ad set and that everyone there is familiar with her while the rain continues to fall on her. Even though Dilara is unsure of what happened, she is back to her regular routine and finds that everything is precisely as it was before she went.  She still cannot comprehend what transpired or why her body and mind led her to the other side of life. Considering that the director explained the entire event rather thoroughly just before she entered the scene, it is likely that she was dreaming the entire scenario, which caused her to enter a realm similar to what the advertisement describes. Thanks for watching till the end. Please subscribe to the channel.


Okay, so we've seen that for diatomic molecules, if we include various corrections for non-ideality like anharmonicity and centrifugal distortion and so on, we can predict the spectrum, the infrared absorption spectrum for diatomic molecules pretty accurately. Nail every single peak down to hundreds of a wave number or so. As we move on to triatomic molecules, they have the same sorts of peak, but those bands of peaks begin to overlap and the spectra get a little more complex. And the same pattern continues as we move on to more polyatomic molecules, molecules with even more atoms in them. So for example, I can show you the spectrum for ethane molecules, which I'll put on the screen right here. And so this is the spectrum for ethane, I'll draw the structure of ethane so we can talk about the different types of bonds and angles in an ethane molecule. So this spectrum for ethane has the same types of rovibrational absorption bands that we've seen for smaller molecules at relatively high frequencies. So these correspond to the CH stretch type of absorption. And the reason we can't see as many individual distinct peaks here is partially because there's many different types of CH vibrations. There's six identical, symmetric or identical hydrogens, but there's symmetric and anti-symmetric stretches of various different sorts. So there's a lot of overlapping rovibrational bands for different types of CH stretch that appear in this region. This set of bands would be the angle bending modes. For example, those HCH angle bending modes. So there's different regions in the spectrum that absorb light of different types, but because we have only carbons and hydrogens, only a few different types of bonds, only a few different types of angles, there's only a few different bands in which this molecule absorbs light. If I also show you a similar spectrum for a more complicated molecule, propane. So this molecule again just has carbons and hydrogens in it, has HCH angles, has CH spawns. So not surprisingly there's still some CH stretches, there's still various bending modes that show up at the same sorts of vibrational frequencies as for ethane. The only difference is the propane molecule has more of those. It also has a few, if you look in this region, it begins to have a few types of motions that are not as prominent in the ethane molecule or not present at all in the ethane molecule like, for example, the carbon-carbon-carbon bending angle. That's a type of motion that's not present in the ethane molecule. But in general, alkanes, as we add more atoms, the spectrum doesn't get terribly more complex. We just get more absorption in the regions where we have more different CH stretches and more different angle bends and so on. On the other hand, if we move to a more complicated molecule, that's not just an alkane. So next I'll pull up the spectrum for acetic acid. So acetic acid has not just methyl groups and not just carbon-carbon bonds and carbon-hydrogen bonds, but it's also got oxygens, it's got OH bonds, it's got carbonyl bonds, it's got a larger variety of different types of chemical substituents and chemical groups in that molecule. So consequently we see a larger variety of different types of absorption bands in this molecule. So for example, in this broad band around 3,000 wave numbers, we see not just the CH stretch in roughly the same position as it was for the alkanes because this molecule does indeed still have some CH stretches, but we also see absorption at a wider range of frequencies that is associated with OH stretches. So that OH stretch is a much broader absorption band than the CH stretch. This sharp peak right here is the carbonyl stretch and there's various bending modes and so on. So if we're interested we can go through and identify each one of these individual peaks as corresponding to some particular vibrational mode, whether it's a bond stretch or a collective motion of several different atoms or a bending mode or something like that. The main point however is the spectrum ends up looking different for different molecules not because of the number of atoms of the particular type they are, but as a diagnostic of what types of functional groups there are. Molecules with carbonyl stretches, carbonyl groups will tend to have an absorption peak here around 1,700 wave numbers. Molecules with alcohol groups will have an OH stretch and they'll have this broad absorption band around 3,000 wave numbers. So we see that as the molecules get more complex from just a handful of atoms for ethane, more atoms, more complicated still, the spectra get less and less well defined. So for ethane we can still see the remnant of several individual small peaks. We can identify if we were to zoom in on this portion of the spectrum, we can see the individual peaks at specific frequencies that are caused by absorption of individual row vibrational excitations, but as the molecules get larger and more complicated those sharp peaks blur and get smoothed out to form these perhaps very broad peaks or perhaps still fairly narrow but smoothed out peaks where we no longer see individual row vibrational excitations but a complete band. So these line spectra have become band spectra by the time the molecules get more complex. There's two reasons for that smoothing out of the spectrum. One feature is that as we gain more different types of the same stretch, these CH stretches, sorry CH stretches over here, they different row vibrational collections of row vibrational peaks overlap with one another and becomes harder to distinguish the individual lines and also there's a feature called heterogeneity of the environment of these molecules which we'll talk about more in the next video lecture but that also broadens these line spectra into band spectra. So as a summary as molecules get larger, more complicated, more functional groups you should expect to see more different types of peaks in the infrared spectrum corresponding to those functional groups and in fact that's what infrared spectroscopy is often used for is as a sort of fingerprint or diagnostic technique. If you take the infrared spectrum of a molecule and you observe that it's got a sharp peak near 1700, you know that that molecule probably has a carbonyl group in it. If it has a broad absorption band near 3,000 wave numbers, you know it probably has an alcohol in it. And you can get more precise and depending on whether that peak near 1700 is red shifted by a little or blue shifted by a little, you can use that as a signal perhaps of the electronegativity of the group surrounding the carbonyl group, is it in a carboxylic acid, is it in a ketone. So you can use infrared spectroscopy very usefully as a diagnostic or fingerprint technique to identify different types of molecules but you're typically not going to use it to identify individual raw vibrational peaks going from N equals 1 to N equals 2 or L equals 5 to L equals 6 or something like that. So that's summary of molecular infrared spectroscopy. The next thing we'll talk about is what these spectra look like and how they're different for gas phase molecules as opposed to liquid phase molecules.


call recorded. This is the build OGM call for Tuesday, December 21, 2021, the winter solstice. So we are, and we figured out that today at 3.29pm, where we live, it's actually the solstice. We didn't call a scientist, we just asked Google. Although it should be pretty good, right? So it's kind of exciting because I'm always happy when the days start getting longer. I'm always sad when we get to the summer solstice. And it's like, no, no, no, stop, stop, stop. Well, yes. So what is the classic sentence? Feliz Diaz Sol Invicti. What is it? Feliz Diaz Sol Invicti. I think I don't have it exactly. But happy day of the unvanquished son. That's right. That's right. The Roman mitraist, the mitraist version. I'm sure we can look that up. Sol Invictus. Yep. There's a festival of the unconquered sun. I've never heard of this. This is good. Thank you. Here we go. Sol Invictus. It just keeps saying Sol Invictus, but it doesn't give me the full saying. So Feliz Diaz, Natalis Solis Invicti. Natalis, okay. Sorry, I had to look for it. I should know this better. Oops. Thanks. That's the beginning of the Saturnalia in classic Rome. There we go. Feliz Diaz, Natalis Solis Invicti. Huh. Very straight. Cool. Do you want to talk a little bit about the cultural article without my having read it? Or should we just skip until some of the time? Because I'm interested and I'd love your sort of preview or take. Okay. Basically, he's making a generic argument and I don't know how much I want to go into details because I'd have to review it a bit myself. That we have this basic instinct that given this information, more information is more and that people should research all the pros and cons and decide. And he gives a few examples where more information is actually confusing and good heuristics are better than research. He gives actually a very good example on choosing a house and how much should we spend for a house and calculate incomes and expenses and yadda, yadda, yadda. And he says basically this is a good way to get into using bias. Oh, I will be able to let go of that expense. No, you won't. Or not taking into account this or not taking into account that because you want to think you have more income than you do. And you know, there's a rule of thumb, don't spend more than 28% of your gross income on the house. And this is actually better heuristics because there's less of that using your own, your own bias, your own instant judgment, which is really violent. Giger-Enzer rationality for mortals, risks and rules of thumbs. And he's using, he's been pushing this SIFT method for quickly knowing the origin of a claim and quickly evaluating a claim by just looking at where does it come from as opposed to doing all the research about it. And he does show that basically students who spend more time researching kind of the logic of the claim end up like if they do it a little bit, it works really well. And if they do it a lot, they get into information overload and maybe this and maybe that. And it's hard to weigh the relative importance of the various counter arguments and the relative value of the various pro and con arguments. And that was a very interesting point. Like we get all these, oh yes, but this, but that, but this, but that.  And he's saying asking people to be scientists is totally overkill. And asking people to research more is provably counterproductive. Finding more arguments has been shown to be counterproductive, as opposed to the very, very simple step of, okay, where does this come from? Is it, does it show up in reliable sources? Does it show up in blah, blah, blah, which has its own flaws, right? I mean, we all know that reliable sources are their own echo chambers and this and that. It's not that simple. But he's saying it's a much better heuristic than doing the research and being flooded. And certainly I've been, you know, trying to, me and many people in our circle, we're trying to help people see the whole picture. And this notion that seeing the whole picture could be detrimental is definitely something I think we need to address. I don't think it means let's not show the whole picture. But is there a way to contextualize it so that we can help people not be overwhelmed by the multiplicity of pros and cons, which is certainly infinite, right? Right, right. And we select evidence to prove our case. You know, we have a whole bunch of biases. What was the SIFT methodology you were just talking about? Yeah, he's been setting up a methodology. Okay, let me let me just do a link dump, because I think the easiest thing I can do. So Zoom chat, chat, chat. Thank you. So this is a link dump. So the first link is just literacy for mortals. The second one is another note about that thing and why he thought about it. The next one is the Liberal Reading, Canada, Civic Study. That is a big study with tons of schools in Canada where they used his methodology for helping people do information literacy. Then there's... This is Caulfield's methodology of SIFT. Okay. Yeah. And webliteracypressbook.com is the kind of little booklet he wrote about the methodology. The Civic Study, the Canadian Civic Study also has interesting, like they've got another version of another packaging of it in terms of lessons and a real program around it. And then there's articles about, by Caulfield, as he elaborated this, so you get a bit more of the history. So those would be the last links. So this is really my link dump about this. That's awesome. Thank you. And super interesting because he's trying really hard to make us smarter by stepping carefully through the ways we think we make ourselves smarter and saying, that one? Not so much. And try this instead and how about the system to step through things and all of that? It's really, really interesting. And also this is a way of fighting the endless, recursive unpacking of trying to be explicit about everything and trying to map everything and trying to be complete because that's never-ending. And this is maybe a way to... I don't know that this is a way to cut your... to logic your way through arguments or to find your way to better conclusions. It doesn't sound like a reasoning system, but it sounds like an evidentiary system. I'm kind of making this up as I think about it. Yeah. I'm just... Yeah. And I ended up yesterday chasing a little rabbit hole around the Margaret Mead controversy. I didn't realize how controversial she was, but... So there's this guy Freeman. So let me go back to my brain and find the... Mead Freeman controversy. Here's the link in the book Coming of Agent Samoa, which is her first famous work when she was 27 years old. She comes back from Samoa and writes Coming of Agent Samoa, which apparently motivates feminism in a whole bunch of things because it says, hey, there's young people in Samoa who have sexual freedom and this and that and the other.  What happened was she got tricked by two of her... What do you call them? Informants. Informants. Thank you. Perfect. Which is just the worst word to use for that, but still, especially given World War II. But she got tricked by two of her informants who were just pulling her tail and pulling her leg. That's the actual expression. And then I read this Scientific American article by John Horgan that says, forget about Freeman's critique. He was a crazy guy. He was like a loon. And in fact, Mead was much more subtle about her research and more thoughtful. And if you go look at what she did over time, she was really, really good at this. And she put out a couple of fires. There was one point late in her career where a different research paper was really controversial and people were kind of cancel culture-ish about it. And she was like, no, that would be a book burning. Let's not do that. Let's slow down and talk about this. So he defends Margaret. And I'm like, I had no idea this was all happening. Yeah. I'm very interesting. I would read more about that specific controversy. And it's not impossible. She got that wrong. But I have no doubt that she's one of the smartest women in that age. Here's the Horgan article. I just pasted it in. One thing, by the way, I was really, really happy while reading The Dawn of Everything. I'm not done yet. But how much he sends us back to the notion of schismogenesis, which is originally a Bateson. And I think a Bateson need idea, right? I think so. I don't know. I've got it under Bateson only, but that doesn't mean anything. Entropology. No, developed by Bateson. Okay. So maybe it's Bateson only. Yeah. And it's interesting.  I don't know if you know this. Their daughter is Nora Bateson and Mary Catherine Bateson. And there's another one. There's a third one whose name I forget. And so their sort of collaborations are super interesting. And Bateson is one of these very deep systems thinkers as well. Five kids of Gregory, now maybe, you know, he had three spouses and so did Margaret Mead. But they just say five, including, it's like, they had a son, John Sumner Bateson, as well as twins who died young. Oh, no, no, but that's the Sumner. Okay, so Mary Catherine is the only daughter in common. Oh, interesting. Okay, so Nora's not. Nora's from a different wife. Yeah. Third time, a therapist and social worker, Lois Kamak. Okay. So I like this thinking about thinking a lot. I think, you know, epistemologically or whatever else, logically, I think we're certainly in those waters. I'm trying to figure out how this might work. But it takes me back to last Friday's call about composting. And I know and I want to report on it because it was kind of, it was a lovely warm call, but it was very lukewarm about composting. And part of it was the language of composting is not great, but it's not, it's not the metaphor or the label that matters so much. It's like, I can kind of, and this may only be because I'm obsessively like curating the brain, et cetera, et cetera. But I can see how several people would be doing a piece of what you just said together in a shared space and how that would be useful for humanity in some sense by leaving behind artifacts that would be arguments and, you know, other sorts of narrative trails and whatever else. And the more we learn and begin to understand how to feedback into the system, hey, this is just a story or just a narrative, but it's important as a narrative because narratives tend to conquer our brains and eat our souls and take over our policies, right? And then here's a string of facts that were disproven later, but held sway, like that kind of thing is interesting as well. But I can see that happening, but I don't know that everybody on the call was like, yeah, yeah, I can see that happening. So it was me, Jean Bellinger, Stacey, you were on the call? I forget. It was just four of us on the call. And I can look at the video again also. But we didn't end up at the end of the call, I think Mark Caronzo was on the call too. And he is an obsessive like I am with a particular tool that he's built, right? So both of us can kind of see it, but at the end of the call, we weren't all going, yeah, awesome, this is great. We know how to frame it. Let's go do this. So sorry, can you give me the two line word definition of composting because I'm afraid I'm lost. That's fine. That's fine. So the conceit of weaving the world is that there are regular episodes that are like the fruiting body, the mushroom of this thing, they look and smell like regular podcast episodes. Then we have composting calls, that's the temporary name, where we look back on those episodes and invite in the guests from the episodes too, if they want to or can't attend. But then with other people, we sit there and we go deeper, we're like, okay, like you just sent a beautiful batch of links to me. I would weave those into my brain even before the composting call. And then we would sit down and stare at this and I would go read some call field and make sure that I had done some more homework. And then we would come in and say, what does this take us? What else does it connect to? Where else might that conversation that we had lead us? So the composting is kind of mulching, inoculating the nutrient materials and putting them into the larger ongoing body of useful work. And that assumes a whole bunch of things. That assumes that there is an ongoing body of useful work of some sort other than Wikipedia, let's say. That assumes that people collaborating can find their way to the simpler arguments, like you started the conversation about call field and literacy.  But I can see the pony, like I'm like, that smells like important work and like something we can start to prototype and model for other people. And one of the devious goals of leaving the world is to get other people excited about composting and about feeding the big fungus, which is why I like the mycelial metaphor so much. So it's really about deep dives. And I certainly cannot be more encouraging of deep dives. And the whole, I don't know where I was having that conversation, I think with Wendy actually. Alfred, you remember Clay Scherke? Of course. Saying that one of the conditions of collective intelligence, the way he defined it, was independence, like diversity and independence of the opinions to basically avoiding group think, making sure people don't see one another's. And I'm sure that's absolutely true. And I often have the exact opposite, but I think it's not contradictory definition that I don't think there's real collective intelligence. If you just aggregate information from everybody's individual position, it's when people start to really build on one another's positions and learn from one another and create something more that you have real collective intelligence. But there's no question that that stage of building on one another works best if you've really mapped out the diversity. And there, I think Clay Scherke's independence is perfectly valid. I think you need both. And this is the usual pulsation back and forth. And the composting stage, I don't know if it's related to that to be honest, but what it seems to me is that the pre-composed stage, it's more, you know, let's create a curated view in a small group, because sorry, yesterday's conversation and curation is totally relevant. And this is very much the convergence and building. And then the composting, should it be together or should it be independent and many subgroups? Because maybe that's a stage that would benefit from the independence.  And before you come back for another convergent stage and weaving things together. And I think you need both in pulsating. And I think that that's like polarity management kind of like you were referring to a moment ago, I think that's a polarity to manage is like, are we diverging or are we converging? What do we want to do? How complete do we need to make this? Who wants to take on this small sub piece and play it out? Because it could be that it could be that in the middle of such a conversation, one person's like, I love this topic, I'll be back in a week with something that I've created around it. And then that becomes an interesting contribution in the flow of thought, right? Yeah. So I think all that. And I think that active engagement together over the topic is essential to this composting or whatever we call it. And then we need to we need a great verb that actually sort of calls this out because composting is like rotting, unfortunately, but composting or mulching is also like the generation of nutrients from waste. And certainly the ants in the hive are not busy composting the leaf matter, but they sort of are. It's almost an act of mulching. It's like they're mixing their spit with the leaves, they're putting it on a fungus so that the fungus can break down the materials and feed them. So composting is awfully close to what's going on, right? And we call them farmer ants as well. They're not just leaf cutter ants, they're also known as farmer ants because they're farming the fungus as a whole other breed of farmer ants that farm aphids. You know about those? Yeah. Yeah. Basically drink the aphid poop. You know what? There's different forms of making a living in nature and some of them are stranger than others. Ants are fascinating. Oh my God. Yeah. Ian Wilson found a career. Yeah. But on the other hand, well, what was the classic kind of lane quote specialization is for insects? Yeah. Yeah. We're not, we don't want like again and again. I mean, I think specialization, I agree and disagree, specialization can be awfully useful and generally and going across specializations are fully useful. And this is this whole pulsating metaphor, right? Diverge and converge. You need both. Exactly. And how to kind of how to manage them well together in community is important. It is part of what we're trying to model here and then or refine or something like that. And then how to do that while preserving a longer term asset is a big piece of it, which is why like, I just think that like the internet archive, there's a possible like real resonance there with improving the archive in some way. And yet, and yet I think the conversation wasn't like clearly exciting. And, and I got a note back from one participant who's an old friend who's like, frankly, I don't see the value. And I was like, well, okay, gosh. Interesting. You know, it was mentioned again during Mike's, well, Mike mentioned it again during his presentation. So Mike at least, sorry, Mark Carranza sees the value. Okay, good. During his presentation on Saturday, you mean? Yes. Okay. Cool. I'm sorry, I missed. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, so I don't think, you know, some people don't see the value or some, some will, it's okay. I totally see the value because it's the whole question of diversity, right? I'm, of course, very, very, very big proponent of diversity and, you know, have diversity and yeah, yeah, yeah. And I remember once almost, you know, waking up in a sweat, not, not exactly, but almost had a nightmare of, okay, we have diversity, we have mixing, and then we lose the diversity because everybody's mixed and we've converged to the mean. We do need the ability to like, I complain about racism and I still do and I still always will, but we need the ability for some people to say, no, you know what? We want to remain heterogeneous in our own little sub community. So, and we need that for diversity because you don't have these heterogeneous sub packets that remain true to whatever weird idea they have. And I hope it's not ethnic, but cultural, but whatever, right? It's, yeah. So is this, is this yet another polarity to manage? Or is this simply, or is this more of an either or thing? Because, so for me, I can imagine healthy communities where a piece of their energies are spent figuring out how to collaborate with other people and communicate with them so that we might govern together over the things that matter to us. Awesome. But to do that, we might need to learn a common language, a lingua franca, a trade language, whatever else it might be. And then also spending a huge amount of our time preserving, protecting and passing down our traditional cultures in ways. Absolutely true. Absolutely true. But for this traditional culture in ways to be meaningful, you have to have a certain cultural homogeneity. And so you need to be able to say, you know what? Let's stick together in this little, and I don't think nation state is the right boundary for this. Right, right. Because then you get in trouble. And the whole question of, you know, who owns the land and thinking beyond land ownership and yadda yadda yadda. It's like, hello. People are worried about the migration flux now. Wait a bit. Yeah, exactly. And a dear friend of mine just wrote a book about land use over the years. Her name is Joe Gouldy. And he just she just wrote, where's the book? Where's the book? No, that's not the book. Where's come on. It's brand new. Well, shoot, I'm on her. I see the history, history manifesto, roads to power and her newest book is I just added it. That's weird. I'll let me Google for it. But you see what I'm saying, like, for example, intentional communities, intentional communities are often it's heterogeneous in some ways because whoever picks up on their weird idea behind the intention and there's diversity there. But on the other hand, it's like, okay, we'll make a community of people who agree with those tenets or beliefs or we want to do things this way. That's important. The possibility of doing that is profoundly important. I found the book, The Long Land War, the global struggle for occupancy rights. And it's not officially out yet, but it's like in process. And she's long been like, we're concerned about land rights because it's such an important issue in history, right? Between enclosure movements and struggles, I grew up partly in Peru. And I remember the reform agraria agrarian reform was like what what the opposing candidates always ran on. Then occasionally they would win and they would sort of resort the land out to peasants and then occasionally it would get taken away. And that was that was like this this continuous flip-flop battle, you know, the seesaw battle over time. My wife's my wife's first novel is about that. Oh, no. Land rights in an imaginary African country. Wow. Wow, that's cool. So, okay. So there's something promising here between us and the work we're doing together. I'm trying to figure out, I'm trying to find the right framing, right, invite the right language, the right motivation for it so that it turns into a happy practice that a bunch of us do, right? And we can do it asynchronously or together. I think that together is really fun because because it gets it gets excited and it warms up really nicely when somebody says, yes, yes, that, but also did you know that Margaret Mead did this other thing? And then it builds a body of evidence that each of us kind of brings together to the table. We create a better a better and bigger idea of whatever topic we were chewing on at the time. There's an there's an amplification. There's a there's a growing and a weaving are connecting, but then improving of the thoughts. And this is why I think the GitHub metaphor is so important, right? Because it's about let's have a little team making a branch and doing a deep dive on a branch from whatever we started from. And then let's weave it back together, like merge back. Okay, we've done this deep dive here and another team is another deep dive there. Another team is another deep dive there. How what can we make out of this? But the whole fork and branch and we, you know, we've outweave in metaphor, I think is hugely, hugely important. Yeah. Who else is doing this that that as a community in some sense, that we can learn from? Because I don't think I don't think we're unique here. And you know, what we're doing is kind of the work of creating the Oxford English Dictionary, except that was just the dictionary that it wasn't supposed to have opinion. It was supposed to just find the first origins of words, really good definitions of words and then compile that sucker into a big tone. And the professor in the madman is entertaining. And it was just two humans who were obsessive collaborating. I will note, I started talking about Oxford OED as a kind of a joke in the context. And then I'm realizing it was really created by two people who were completely consumed by the task, one of whom was in an insane asylum. Okay, that's maybe that's maybe that's the role model here. Stacy, make a note for the team. We should go query some asylum. But there's other communities of collective intelligence. You know, yeah, it would be interesting for us in OGM to just sort of do a little mental survey of who else do we know that's doing this kind of this nature of work in what way. Scientific communities coming up with papers are digesting, you know, their matter in in this way in a scientifically tested rigorous kind of process, right? Anybody doing a PhD is doing this by themselves, not so much a community. They're doing a literature, literature search, they're trimming up the thesis, they're kind of turning that all into something, you know, they're contributing to their field. But what I hear here is again, the little team doing something and of course, they're doing it a bit more obsessively. And this is how you get stuff done up to a point. Yeah. And I'm all for it. But it's again, some small team doing something that what interests me is how the back and for the weave in and out. And that I don't think exists that much, because frankly, the tooling is not there yet. We don't have good tooling to weave back together knowledge graphs. And for me, that's that's my mission, right? It's exactly. And it's striking me that the artifacts humans do have is cave paintings that we go back to. And then we stand there and go, gosh, we have no idea what they were thinking when they did this or how on earth they painted such beautiful bison way deep in a cave when all they had was torches. Or is this a sacred? Is this a sacred painting? Is this just like somebody who was like, I can paint this look, you know, we have a very little context and we go back to those because those are those artifacts have somehow miraculously, I look at those pigments on the wall and I'm like, how is that still on a wall anyplace after, you know, in some cases, 30,000 years? Yeah, the oldest cave art is clocking back to that kind of that kind of timing. It's kind of insane. Absolutely. Absolutely. So it's kind of weird. I'm still here. I'm just going to meet my video for a second. There we go. And so who, yeah, so where else do we look? Who else do we ping? Who else is concerned about this? Who else cares? That kind of thing. I would say a lot of people on the one hand, right? It's all over the place. I mean, we know a lot of maybe mapping communities and this is what Vincent is doing with Trove is a big, a good first step. Like as I said, I know people in France doing it. I've named them a few times. I know people and again, there's many people, many communities. And there's community asset mapping actually as a practice that has a couple of our names and and like Christina Bowen has used Kumu to do food web mapping of the Columbia River Gorge area, including what organizations are doing what where what does nature kind of do some of that. But again, that was a lot of her project because the tool is arcane, right? And so in a really good project, what happens is the tool artist sits in community listening and feeding back into the tool into the map, what the community is thinking and doing and learning and the map gets better because one person really knows how to use the tool and the tools are to arcane for a bunch of people to just be weaving in there together, usually. And then kind of along the same line of logic, and then this better map, which is really pretty interesting is trapped inside of Kumu, which is this complex tool. And that data doesn't make its way out into other mapping, other efforts, other whatever. And at some point is lost when Christina dies or when the community just decides they don't care about it anymore and don't maintain it or somebody forgets the password to the server or whatever, right? And then we have a loss.  There's like the better tools are kind of arcane. The better tools don't leave data that's more useful with other tools in the broader scheme, et cetera. And there seems like I like Creative Commons, the CC, the organization and I love the archive, but it feels like we're not actually yet building this more connected Commons. And this is why your point about my goodness, the Internet archive needs to have this, needs to curate these knowledge graphs. And that should be part of the curation, because the knowledge graphs are in have enormous value. On the other hand, you speak about the arcane tools and that's one thing. But I mean, these tools are going to be complex and arcane. I don't think that's the problem.  And how much can I get from having access to your brain and vice versa? Like, it's something that helps you think, how much does it help me think? It'll show me stuff. But I mean, discovering it there or discovering it elsewhere was a difference. What's the difference is, as I said about curated views, you can tell a story from this, because you've externalized part of the stories you know around this into the visual arrangements. And can I tell a story from your brain? Not clear. And it's always, and the question of negotiating, making a personal liminal object, a personal outboard brain into a community liminal object is going to be enormous. Very complex process. And I don't think we have that much good experience of that. Like, I'm really curious how many ontologies are designed by a very, very small committee versus taking community input. But the good news is that often a small group does great work and other people are like that. Thank you so much. That's a great contribution. And it gets exactly, it flows in. So that's actually not terrible. The fact that a few people working well, a few people collaborating very well can create really useful artifacts is a fine and dandy element of this. And one piece that I'm coming to, and this, I think the Friday call brought this home to me is, I think I need to slow things down in a sense of, I'm like, okay, good, we're going to have a podcast, we're going to have episodes, and we're going to have these composting calls. Come on, everybody, let's compost. And it's like, we don't really know what that is. We need to kind of slow it down to just figure our way to poke and test our way into what composting is. And then like the hodown call that we did, God, a year and a half ago now, was a really nice call. And I should have done more of them just so that we had a rhythm of, hey, today we're going to test a bunch of tools. And one thing I could do is I could change the rhythm of the Thursday calls. And right now we're doing check in and one topic, we can do check in topic and hodown. Or on the topic calls, we could say, hey, it's topic and hodown, and invite people to map and contribute their maps at the end of the call. Or alternate, you know, two topic calls, one hodown call or whatever. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And one fear is that the hodown part of it, the tools part of it will distract from really good topical conversations. And I can see that happening. But if a couple of people, if a couple of If a couple of manic obsessives like me are busy like composting away during a call and still managing to participate, who that doesn't bother anybody else really. And I think the artifacts are better. But I have this feeling I need to slow down the pace to find our way to what this is. And then I'm not coming to the Thursdays because between the Monday and Tuesday, where personally, I get more value. I'm not saying there's no value on Thursdays, it's like I had to make a choice. I totally understand. And I am just so thrilled that you're with us regularly on Mondays and Tuesdays. Like, thank you.  You just reminded me of something that showed up in my head a moment ago that I forgot, which is it might be useful for me to run a poll about my brain. And basically, because I have personal experience and firsthand, almost like testimonial emails from friends who are like, Jerry, I've made it a practice when I hit some new area to go look in your brain because I always find useful links and I don't know. And other people who can look at what I've mapped and how I've mapped it, and they get stuff from it. And then I have plenty of evidence from others who are like, I look at your map and without you guiding me, without you saying, hey, this goes here, this goes there, this is why I'm lost. It's just a mess of links. And then there's other people who are like, I don't get any of it. And I don't know what distinguishes one from the other. I don't know what might bump some people from one group into a group that sees more value and gets more value without my participation. I don't know how to increase my presence without increasing my presence literally with ours. So I have a couple of use case videos that I shot a year or more ago about how to use the brain. One is about the potato, a couple others.  The potato is just fascinating, fascinating food source. It's like born in the Andes with Bolivia and Peru. Makes its way to Europe where nobody will eat it. Royalty has to trick and convince people to eat it.  And then that's just one little slice of the story. And you're like, oh my God, right? And part of the reason there's a bite is that there's 400 varieties of potato in Peru, and only two of them get brought to Europe. So there's a monocrop, it's a clone crop, which is completely vulnerable to the bite. And you're like, so many interesting things here. As monocultures generally are. And as we see right now with humans, bingo, and with factory farming and monocropping and all that kind of stuff. And then it spills over into the Irish potato famine and this huge immigration of Irish into America, where they are mistreated and hated. Like the latest wave of immigrants is always spat on, stomped on, frowned on, hated, all of that. Like people hate the Irish, can't stand them.  So anyway, I love all those connections. And I love mixing and matching stories about those things with an awareness that off sometimes they're just stories. Sometimes they're just, sometimes they're not actually supported by evidence. But you're saying, you see what I'm saying about like this is really back to the curated view thing. You told me a story. That story is present in the links as in all the links that make up the story are there. But the story isn't because the story is more than that. It's a path and a narrative and taking a subset of the path to make a certain causal relationship or set of causal relationships evident in the whole path. And that's what I was calling a curated view. So go ahead. And I can see how people who are, and I really get, you're right, the survey would be interesting, how much of being able to derive value from your brain has to do with enough context to be able to, so that the new links enrich existing context. Because I found like I'm one of my claims to fame is I learn fast enough. And when people ask me, how do you do it? Well, it's because a lot of things, there's a framework. So a new fact gets grafted onto an existing framework. And I know where it fits because it's got a framework to attach to. It's not floating in midair, right? Yeah, exactly.  And then the reason is that your life quest is to create this infolumen to figure out how arguments work is that you have really rich frameworks going on in your head. And when something new floats by, you're like, oh, good. It's like this and this. And yeah, it's my, it's the way my brain works. And I have absolutely rotten visual memory, for example. And you know, it's brains are different. Whatever. That's not the point. The point is not about me. The point is, is it are people who relate to your brain? Is it because they have more of kind of visual thinking or receptivity to serendipity and to seeing value in your stuff? Or is it that they have enough existing frameworks that the new links fit well with existing links? Total, I'm, I'm, I'm mouthing hypothesis and I'm sure there's more. These are great questions. So I'm, I'm actually really inspired to set up a poll and maybe, maybe set up to use one of our calls to design a good, a nice poll, send it out to as many people as possible and to then sit down together and analyze results and sort of slow things down and go deeper into that. And also I think sometimes I think the people who get more value are the people who stop and just knows around longer to the point where they put the point where they begin to pick up the patterns that I'm busy doing ongoing, right? Makes perfect sense.  I have a bunch of ways. There's a style that I use when I'm feeding my brain. And once you've sort of nosed around in there enough and you start to absorb my pattern, I think then stuff starts to call out. And if you don't know that I use purple for opinions and yellow for look here, which is something I try to explain in the, you know, brain 101 video kind of thing.  Right, right, right, right, right, right. No, it would be interesting to have this survey actually. But what I was trying to say is your, the story is implicit in your brain. It's not stated and it's a very big part of the knowledge encoded in your brain. Yes. And making that explicit. Like, I remember the first thing you wanted with me brain was, oh, can I have a path representation? Because your stories are paths. They're not links. They're not their paths. Higher level patterns. They're links of links. They're links of links. Yeah, fancy that. Yeah, exactly. And one of the reasons I really liked Prezi before they killed themselves was that ability to declare a path, right? And I was trying to figure out how to make the brain do something Prezi like, you know, just like programmatically because Miro is quite programmatic. It would be cool if somebody wrote some code to help Miro be Prezi. That would be, that's got to be doable. Of course. That's got to be doable. Anyway, no, I think, I think this is this, I don't know if we got a conclusion, but I really think that this whole question of what is the narrative behind the, that is encoded in the curation in the curated view? And that's one fundamental question versus the value of the graph itself. Like the value of the graph is really what story is it telling? Or what simplification is it affording, right? In ontologies, they're not telling a story, but they're giving people bins in which to put things. And that's also of value. And of course, it can be also limiting. We know that, but that's okay. I mean, that's the point is we are creating, and I insist so much on, yeah, what's the use of ontology without the distinguishing characteristic of why this is different from that? Because again, the distinguishing characteristic is another part of the story that may be missing if all you have is the skeleton of the ontology, right? That again, the distinguishing characteristic is a big part of the real ontology, as opposed to just the skeleton of the, yeah. It's not just the taxonomy. It's like, okay, what makes this part of the taxonomy different from its siblings? And I think we're all earnestly trying to figure out how to distill those insights so that they are crisp and visible and useful. Exactly. Right?  Distillation community.  And gotta say, any group of people who's made any progress on a pattern language fits that bill really nicely. And we live right close to a couple communities that have been a whole bunch of that, right?  And the answer is probably both. Yeah, the answer is probably both. I think what winds up happening in a good pattern language is that one or two people are the guides of the whole pattern language that then several participants took particular interest in several patterns and nodes and wove them in, and that the group of them had some really interesting and possibly difficult conversations about the broad scheme and how things fit and whether this is or isn't a pattern and how to break this one up and whatever, and that those were hopefully, if the thing was really fruitful, that those were exciting conversations because people could see commonalities and they could see that wisdom was being distilled and all of that. So, you know, whether it's Christopher Alexander and his team at or University of Oregon back in the seven, late 70s, probably early 80s, you know, writing the first one or whoever. But I think there's a really interesting excursion here into pattern language communities. And we have several people who'd love to write pattern languages. And so we may be back in that we should, we might have to have the tools conversation again, about what is our best bet, you know, is it massive wiki? Do we use markdown and massive to do a pattern language? I don't know. Yep. Okay. I think on that note, I should go back to building my own tools. Okay. I think this was a good stopping point. Yeah, thank you. We've got lots of good things running in my head and I've got a bunch of links to go read and absorb and put my brain, but thank you. A bientôt. A bientôt. Ciao ciao.