So this is Sam said, you know, he's got his podcast called majority report, just, you know, again, to give you a sense of the world in which we live. Now, his production values are very good. So you'll see that. But to give you a sense of the world in which we live, I have 16,000 something subscribers. Sam has 688,000 subscribers. So not just some minor, you know, second class, I mean, important guy within this world of commentary on the progressive side. And, and we're gonna, you know, see, see what he has to say. And by the way, think about what do you prefer? Medicare for all or Medicare for or just a public option. That is a part of Obamacare, which is if you can buy, if you can buy health insurance in the private markets, you can basically get it from the government.  So it's guaranteed. Everybody gets health insurance. And the payment is really, really low. And if you don't have any money, you get it for free. Here we go. This is interesting. When we talk about Joe Biden's desire to add a public option. They hate Joe Biden, by the way, to the Affordable Care Act, even one that people could buy into as opposed to just being limited as the ACA is now to people who don't have an option of getting health insurance through their employer or any other way. And subsidies only being available up to a certain percentage of wealth. So the idea, again, is that the public option would allow anybody to get health insurance. It would be completely subsidized. So it wouldn't be capped. It would be completely subsidized. And it would be run by the government. That is, it would be an extension of Medicare, which is really, really important. And as you'll see, Sam is not a fan of this because he's a bunny fan. He was Medicare for. Contrary to a certain percentage of poverty. And the idea that, you know, costs are crazy. The real question is like, how do you cut costs? Well, here is the former Medicare administrator, Dr. Don Burwick. So the big issue is, with all these discussions about health care is costs. How do you, I mean, health care in the United States, supposedly, the Democrats, the progressives argue, is very, very expensive. Costs are through the roof. They're really, really expensive. So how do we cut costs? And he's going to refer to a testimony that Obama's health care expert made in front of Congress when Obamacare was being passed, who is going to argue that the public option would not cut costs, which is true. This is under Obama. He explains why the public option at a house hearing will not be sufficient for containing medical costs. I'm a little worried about the public option for a kind of technical reason. Insurance companies want to provide insurance to people that don't need it. That is such a bogus argument. I mean, insurance companies don't want to provide insurance to people that don't need it. Insurance companies want to know the what extent you're going to need the coverage and want to have visibility into that so that they can effectively price the insurance. But this idea that insurance companies work, you know, scour the universe and only insure people who don't need insurance. Well, we all need insurance. That's why we all buy insurance and we don't know whether we're going to need it or not. But the idea that insurance companies won't insure unhealthy people. They'll insure unhealthy people. They'll just expect to be paid for the risk that they're taking on. So this presentation of insurance is if, you know, insurance, auto insurance companies only want to insure people who will never have an accident. Well, no. They're willing to insure and they take into account that they will insure people who are going to have an accident. They just want to have an effective way to price that so that they continue to make a profit off of insuring people like that.   They just want to know how sick you're going to be so that they can price it so that they don't lose money overall on insuring the whole pool. That's how they make money. And so anything. No, they make money by creating a pool from whom they charge more and invest the money and the investment plus what they charge you is more than what you're going to get when you get sick. That's how they make money.    And some homes have a higher risk of burning down and some homes have a low risk of burning down.  And the other home might not is safer in some way. It's not in a fire zone. And therefore they will charge them less. And overall in their pool and given the ability to invest the money, they want to make money over time, not on any particular person who is insured. On some people, they lose a lot of money. But overall over the entire pool, they have to make money. That's how insurance works. But this is a way of couching insurance as if it's in a free market, there would never be insurance for people who have high fire risk. No, there would be. They would just be charged based on the risk. And yes, the insurance company would lose money on some of those. And they know that. But that's why they put it in a pool and that's why other people, they're going to make more money on, then they're going to lose on you and overall they're going to make money. It's just a sneaky way of presenting insurance that is half true, but plays into the populations kind of distrust and dislike of insurance companies. Under game risk. So the public option would be used by all the people who really need the insurance. But that, by the way, is not the insurance company. That's us as human beings gaming the risk. That is, if you offer me insurance, that is unrelated to the risk of me getting sick or insurance, that is unrelated to the risk of me getting a fire and you make it cheap, then of course I'm going to go with you rather than go to a commercial insurance company that's actually going to price the policy based on the risk. So if I'm obese and have a high risk there for diabetes and cancer and heart disease, then my health insurance is going to cost a lot of money. Should cost a lot of money because my risk of being getting a disease is high. And of course, if somebody else offers me a cheaper policy, certainly if they offer me a free policy, I'm going to go with that. So it's not insurance companies gaming the system. It's by the government introducing a free or low cost alternative that is not risk based. That is, does not categorize people based on risk. They are the ones that are creating an untenable insurance market. They are basically destroying insurance. And that's what Obamacare to a large extent did. It destroyed insurance. So what you're getting is not insurance. What you're getting is just a mechanism of redistribution of wealth from healthy people to sick people. That's not what insurance is. That's not what insurance is. As soon as you take risk pricing out, as soon as you offer an alternative that is not based on risk or you prohibit insurance companies from using risk as a criteria, it's not insurance anymore. It's just another mechanism of redistribution of wealth. So it's so dishonest because these are not idiots. And of course, what is he doing? He's blaming insurance companies. He says the way insurance companies game the system. No, it's a way government destroys the insurance market. How they make money. And so anything that can be done to game risk so that public option would be used by all the people who really need the insurance. And insurance companies would then try to find ways to have people who really need care go to the public option, which would be a good business case for them. And that's not good for the country. It's not what happens. It's not the insurance companies trying to get them to go on to the public option. That is what the incentives mean. That's what has to by necessity happen.  You're going to go with the government policy. That's just market incentives. That's just human incentives. But it's much easier instead of saying government has just destroyed the insurance market to say greedy insurance companies are manipulating the public to force them into government policy. And by the way, if all the if all the sick people go into the public option, what happens? Prices in the public option go through the roof. It's not sustainable and cost of Medicare expand dramatically. So look, I mean, this is an extension of the argument as to why you can have private insurance if you have Medicare for all. It just needs to be supplemental to what is offered in the context of Medicare for all. So this is where the Democrats are going to come down. You've got to have Medicare for all. Everybody has access to Medicare and everybody's on Medicare automatically. You don't get to choose. And then if you want for special things and we'll see he struggles to figure out what those special things are. If you want for special things, you can buy, you know, gold plated insurance on top of the government Medicare that you're going to get. That is what Medicare for all. That's the only plan that works because the problem with the public option is exactly what they what this guy said. All the highest risk or the highest cost patients go to the public option bankrupt the Medicare system. It's bankrupt anyway. We'll get to that. And the insurance companies make a lot of money because they have all the healthy patients. That's exactly what would happen. But that's not the insurance company's fault. That's the fault of the people designing the system. And because if you have it compete with Medicare for all, the insurance companies are going to try. And I don't know if they'd be able to do it if Medicare for all existed and you still had competing insurance. I mean, I guess in my mind it's an open question for some it's not as to whether you would have enough people who enter into the Medicare for all program. So that the risk pool that is all the people who are involved in the program is the risk is dispersed amongst more people. Yeah, they need they need healthy and sick people in Medicare for all to make it somewhat work. It still doesn't work and we'll get to that but somewhat work. The whole nature of of insurance in terms of health anyways and not true. Well, the other and I mean this is just the way insurance works. It's a small number of people who are going to be responsible for the highest number of costs. That is true. But smart insurance, all insurance companies that is not regulated by government, prices risk in advance to the extent that they have information about the risk.  If you on your on your insurance, I think there actually are insurance companies that do this today. You would get a discount if you agree to have a GPS tracker on your on your car.   The same thing with health insurance. They would actually evaluate your health. And to the extent that you were likely to be using a lot of health care, your premium would be higher than if you were jogging all the time.  If you were actually practicing a healthy lifestyle, your insurance costs would be lower. Now it strikes me that even if you put aside the economics, isn't that just virtuous? If somebody behaves in ways that reduce their risk of disease, shouldn't they injustice, injustice morally? Shouldn't they have to pay less for ensuring their health in the future than people who don't? All insurance is risk based. Otherwise it's not insurance. It's not just we have a big pool, some are high risk, some are low risk, we don't know who they are. We just randomly have a big pool and somehow it works. It's not insurance. That's not the business of insurance. That's what government does. Because government can't price it differently. Government prices it all the same. So Medicare, I mean, is based on your income, not on your risk. The more income you have, the more you pay into the system. And yet you get the same benefits as somebody who paid little into the system. You get in whether you're healthy or unhealthy, makes no difference. You pay based on your income. So all it is is a way to penalize rich people. And it's not insurance. Medicaid is not unequivocally insurance. It's a massive redistribution scheme from rich to poor, from young to old. That's what Medicare is. Rich to poor, young to old. And you might be okay with redistribution systems. But don't kid yourself that Medicare is somehow an insurance. It has none of the characteristics. Of the characteristics of an insurance. But the point is we don't know who those people will be over the course of a lifetime. But you could know. You could know. You could take their blood pressure. You could take their weight. You could take their blood. You could. Oh my God. Now I'm going to say something completely unacceptable. You could even check their DNA and see how susceptible they are to diseases. Insurance companies asked you if you're willing to give your DNA. And if the DNA turned out to be on the healthy side, that is you are less susceptible to certain diseases, you would get really, really cheap coverage. And if your DNA sucked, then you would have more expensive coverage. But that makes sense. That makes sense. Now it's true. The risk is not your fault. Not there. So what? Insurance companies should take all the available information into account in pricing insurance. Now, even with DNA, there's no guarantee that you will be sick. Now there's also other options. You know, what about pre-existing conditions? Somebody on the left would jump up. Well, one thing that a free market would supply, and this makes complete sense, is you would be able to buy pre-existing condition insurance. That is insurance that covered you against losing your insurance policy if you had pre-existing conditions. For example, you could buy it before the baby was born. And again, even that insurance might be priced based on risks, based on the parent's lifestyle, based on the parent's DNA. So, I mean, once you have a free market, the options are unbelievable in terms of what becomes available to you. What becomes available to you. Right? By the way, studying somebody's DNA is not racist. It has to do with race. It has to do with your specific individual DNA.  We are objectivist. We look at facts. Nothing else. Facts. Not collectives. Not insulting people. Just looking at facts. All right. Let's see what Sam has to say. Now, once you've identified them, if you're the insurance company and you want to insure people, you want to make sure those people are not part of your risk pool. Why not? If you can charge them all, you might be able to still make money off of them. And you want to offload them. You can only offload them if there's some way to offload them too, like a state-run program that doesn't care about risk because it's not insurance. And if you offload them into a system where only a certain number of people are paying into the system because they're buying in as opposed to it being taxation on everyone, you'll have a higher percentage of people who will need the service and that's when insurance breaks down. It's amazing how even progressives understand some limited basic economic principles. In Senev's work, when they think it serves their cause, then in Senev's work. I guess they understand that when you offer something for free relative to offering something that's expensive and what they expensive is price based on risk and the free stuff is not based on risk, then everybody who is high risk will go through the free stuff that they get. But they don't get that when you offer homeless people free housing, they're going to be more homeless people because you've offered something free. So they're going to be more people who want the free stuff. So people are going to leave their homes, stop paying rent, become homeless in order to gain the free stuff that you're offering them, which is exactly what's happening in LA right now and in California because there's so much free stuff being offered that in the short run, it might be worth being homeless. So I think the question of private insurance is overblown. Everybody needs to pay into the system. They want to get a different insurance program. That's fine. But I also think you need to make like the vast majority of doctors and service providers also be part of the system. This is important because everybody talks about how much Medicare for all is going to cost. Everybody talks about increases in taxes. And I don't think that's the issue. Even from an economic perspective, I don't think the fact that taxes will have to go up is the issue. And I think you'll find that once Elizabeth Wan and Bernie Sanders offer their plans, they will have all kinds of ways in which taxes don't go up that much and they only go up on the rich. And if you take out all the premiums you have to pay for health insurance and you get to keep those, then what they're going to argue is if you just take that amount and you pay it into Medicare, then your taxes are not going to go up beyond what you're already paying for health insurance. So the issue is not with Medicare for all. What is going to happen to taxpayers as taxpayers? Now, you all know I think the issue is morality, but we're going to put even the morality aside. We're going to focus on what is the real economic damage of Medicare for all. And it's not taxes. All right, let's see what he says here because this is important. Easy to do, I think. You can't get accreditation unless you take a certain percentage of Medicare patients. And at that point, if everybody's paying in and everybody has access to the same doctors. Same doctors. In my mind, what happens with private insurance or not? Now notice, the way, what they want to do in what Medicare for all, if you have Medicare for all, then if there's no private insurance, then doctors have to be treated after treat Medicare patients because that's all there is. Now, what he's saying is even if you have a private insurance, what you have to do is force doctors and emphasize force, curse doctors into taking a certain number of Medicare patients later on in the clip. He will say that he means like 80, 90% of their patients should be Medicare patients. Now, what does this actually do? So notice that behind Medicare for all is a massive, massive scheme to curse doctors, hospitals, drug companies, biotech companies. All the entire medical production, the real damage of Medicare for all is not the taxes. The real damage is to the producers of healthcare. And this is something nobody ever talks about. Healthcare is something that has to be produced. Somebody has to produce healthcare, whether it's doctors, whether it's pharmaceutical companies, whether it's pharmacists, whether it's scientists, whether it's biotech companies, medical device inventors and companies, hospitals, nurses, healthcare has to be produced by all these people. Now, today, today, before we get Medicare for all, today we have about 121 million people. Let me say that again. 121 million people today are on either Medicare or Medicaid. It's about 53 million people over 65 who are on Medicare and about 68 million, 60 million people on Medicaid. 121 million people on Medicaid and Medicaid. Another 177 million people on commercial insurance. So today what happens is the people in Medicare and Medicaid, when they go see a doctor or they go to the hospital, Medicare and Medicaid pays the bill. Now what does that mean? That means that the doctor doesn't get what he wants. The doctor doesn't get what he negotiates. The doctor doesn't necessarily get enough money to cover his costs.  And if drug companies, if Medicare negotiates as a plan with drug companies, same thing will happen with drug companies. What they get is what Medicare decides they get. And often what Medicare decides they get is below their costs. Indeed, the reason healthcare is so expensive for all of us who have private insurance. Because not only are we subsidizing Medicare and Medicaid for people through our taxes, we are subsidizing people on Medicare and Medicaid through the cost of healthcare. We are subsidizing it because the doctor, on average, gets 22% less for Medicare than from, than from private insurance. 22% less. Now in some specialties, they get 75% less. They get 25 cents on the dollar. So in general, when a Medicare patient comes to see a doctor, they get paid ridiculously low rates. Well, they need to survive. You know, getting a medical degree is, I don't know, seven years of college. It's residency. It's massive student loans. And these are really, really smart people who probably could have gone into, become lawyers, become programmers, become a whole array of different fields. They have to make a profit. They have to make a return on all the investment that they made in their profession. Well, Medicaid comes in and prices it below at a rate that's not profitable. So what do they have to do? They raise prices on the rest of us. So all of us who are private insurance are paying way more than we should to subsidize Medicare and Medicaid. Now imagine, now that is true in hospitals, where massively Medicare and Medicaid pay sometimes right now for, 40% less than what private insurance does. 40% less than what private insurance does. That's true in every aspect of the healthcare industry. Now what does Medicare for all do? Medicare for all, instead of taking 177 million people, subsidizing 121 million people, which is damn immoral, evil, disgusting, horrific, nasty. And the result is a very high cost of healthcare for those of us on private healthcare. But on top of that, once you have Medicare for all, everybody is now in the Medicare and Medicaid pool. That means every dollar spent on healthcare is 20, 40, 75% less than what we've been spent with private insurance, which means doctors now can't make up the losses from taking Medicare patients. Now they're just losing money. Now what does that do? That means doctors stop working, retire early, don't go to medical school, don't try. Why bother? You're not going to be paid for it. You're not going to get a return for it. And indeed, the political as healthcare costs expand and as more and more people retire and they go, well everybody's in Medicare, but they use more healthcare so the costs go up. What do you think is going to happen? The government's going to have all these expenses. What are they going to do? They're going to start cutting, but they're not going to cut explicitly. They're not going to say, we're not going to pay for your appendix. We're not going to pay for your cancer. What they're going to say is, we'll continue to pay, but we're going to pay the doctors less. We're going to pay the hospitals less. We're going to pay less for an MRI. We're going to pay less for the drugs. And what's that going to result in? Less profitability for doctors, hospitals, drug companies, healthcare providers, producers of all kinds. Less profitability for them, if any. Some of them go out of business. Some of them retire, which is like going out of business. Others just lower the quality. You can see that in Puerto Rico where there's a shortage of doctors. What happens? Huge waiting lines. They only have 10 minutes per patient. They can't treat you properly. They can't give you the time, proper time. The doctors are trying. They're good doctors. They really make an effort, but they can't. They're making something like 15 bucks per patient. How many patients a day do you have to see if you're only going to make 15 bucks per patient? A lot. A lot. Now, quality of care goes down. MRI facilities shut down. Hospitals shut down. And because there's less profit, if any, there's almost no research being done. And what happens with Medicare for all, which is much worse, much, much, much worse than the taxes, is the entire production of healthcare collapses. It collapses, particularly if you don't want immigrants, immigrant doctors who are willing to work for cheap. It completely is gone. This is why there's shortages of doctors in many European countries. This is why you have to wait in line. This is why healthcare is rationed. And this is why there's no medical innovation or barely any medical innovation outside the United States. There's no profits to be had. Why would I innovate if I can't benefit from it? So Medicare for all is not just a problem that our taxes are going to go up. Who cares?  But as long as I can get good healthcare, if they're to pay higher taxes, I don't care. What's really, really, really bad about Medicare for all is that it will cause a complete collapse. Well, at least a slow, steady, systematic deterioration in the production side. And that's the side progressives. And on the right have no conception of somebody said on the chat that there's now an article in the national review, a conservative approach to Medicare for all. Yeah, collectivists don't care. They don't understand economics. They don't care about producers. They don't care what it does to doctors. They don't understand the role of the mind. They don't understand why doctors need freedom. Hospitals need freedom. Drug companies need freedom. Medical device inventors and manufacturers need freedom in order to continue to innovate, to continue to expand, to continue to produce great products. What else happens? Well, doctors now only have 10 minutes to see you. In those 10 minutes, they can't really think. All they do is follow government guidelines for particular treatments of the particular symptoms you seem to have. There's no in-depth analysis. There's no innovations. There's no thinking outside of the box. There's no, if you've ever seen the series House, years and years ago House, there's no houses. Nobody can afford a house. Well, you can't afford a house because it's Medicare for all. Everybody gets the same. Everybody seems the same doctors. That's what Sam said. The whole idea of socialized medicine, the whole idea of Medicare for all is disgustingly immoral. It's destructive. It's anti-life. It's anti-healthcare. And everybody suffers. Everybody suffers.  It's because production, both in quantity and in quality, plummets, goes down because you can't pay for it. And because centralized planning, centralized payment systems, which are basically centralized planning, dictate one-size-fit-all medicine. So the whole dream of life extension, the whole dream of living long, healthy lives is the idea of personalized medicine. Medicine that is personalized to you, to your DNA, to your particular health needs, that there is no one-size-fit-all. Medicare for all is one-size-fit-all medicine. Socialized medicine is one-size-fit-all medicine. And it is a disaster and it would cripple progress and it would make it impossible for us to achieve that personalized medicine that would allow us to live a long, long time into the future. Now there are many philosophies that would offer that to an individual. There are religions that offer it. There are forms of government that offer it. Not forms of government. That's politics. That's a different branch. That comes later. Well, yes, but governments in some areas, in some instances, would define for you choices or dictate to you how to live your life. But I'll retract governments and just say religions are philosophies. How does objectivism differ from the philosophies that many of us have been exposed to in our youths, philosophies based upon religions, theologians, dogmatists? The very first difference. Objectivism tells you that it is not right. It is not proper to men to take anything on faith. Religion is a matter of faith. You accept a religion emotionally or because you were born to it. You have not chosen it rationally. What objectivism will tell you is that reason. Man's reason is his basic means of survival. That is the most important faculty which he has and he has to guide his life and make his choices by means of his rational faculty. He has to make his own choices, but he has to know how to make them. It is immoral for him to act on his emotions, to be guided by the whim of the moment. That objectivism holds as very wrong, very immoral and morality in fact consists of following your reason to the best of your ability. So that rationality is the basic virtue from which all the others proceed. Using the super chat and I noticed yesterday when I appealed for support for the show, many of you stepped forward and actually supported the show for the first time. So I'll do it again. Maybe we'll get some more today. If you like what you're hearing, if you appreciate what I'm doing, then I appreciate your support. Those of you who don't yet support the show, please take this opportunity. Go to uranbrookshow.com slash support or go to subscribestar.com uranbrookshow and make a kind of a monthly contribution to keep this going.


that's a monumental task. So If there is one takeaway from this talk is Contribute and you can contribute in the very different ways first of all use it I mean go to kind of get yourself a box run the background Run the command and you'll get stuck storm up and running on the environment in few minutes In fact, we have as the two vagrant repository that Gets it's all wired for you read the docs Take a look judge for yourself. It's good for you or not and you can contribute by liking it or By not liking it and probably even more by not liking it because we want to know why it's not good for you Why it doesn't solve the problem that you have so bring the box jump on the community Give us hard time And this is a contribution Contribute by Taking part of Integrations there are few people here who are representing the interesting integration points for instance, there is not a single week where Some of my users don't ask me do we have Zabix Zabix integration and shamefully we don't because they're just we have nuggets We have sense in your relic and blah blah blah. There are 140 integration tools out there And I cannot catch up keep up with that But we spoke with the Zabix guys and they will be looking into integrating this text from there now same Weaves of genie and of pager duty we have but you know, it's interesting to have more and Interestingly, you don't have to own the domain to be the contributor to this domain For instance, Kubernetes our friends with Pearson the big Kubernetes shop and they maintaining the Kubernetes pack for the community Paul's on the guys I'm maintaining the VMware integration because they care about that they started that and so on so forth like a G or it's not at last and it is collab not friends who are integrating that so if you Really care about a project there, you know bring the integration to a stack storm and we are there to help and guide you and look you can If he is text storm is not exactly a cup of tea or you don't know how to play that you can even Everything counts. You can tweet about that you can blog about that you can actually Go and do the github star in that and on this point. I probably you know, I rate my talks By the number of github stars I receive after the presentation. So when today we're done with these You know from the Sunday not so sunny afternoon and you are standing on the airport in the line or you're kind of driving And in the traffic jam and you reach out to a phone to fill up the moment enough bring it up and say, okay It's text storm give it a star And that questions Please Thank you. This is the reason Netflix actually zoomed in sex terms So unlike many of the devops tools we actually build that as the set of microservices itself So it is built to scale every component of sex storm is a microservice horizontal be scalable the guys are sitting on the Message bus. I provocatively don't even draw the Database here because it's irrelevant. We read everything from the file But other than that, you know, this is so we have the scalable architecture ourselves Netflix specifically runs two instances of Stackstorm in each of the availability zone and although they didn't have kind of any big load just yet kind of huge load they didn't have any Major outage either except the one that they provoked itself a kind of human interaction Please we do we are working on improving that even more and At the look at the best thing which we'd seen our users are doing is using chat ops for this and the way it works very nicely with chat ops is your first part Creates kind of prepares the action and then it posts to the chat ops kind of it's ready for you Decision point Proceed years or no, and then it picks from the chat ops and the continuation of the workflow fires up at this point We improve in this functionality this cycle by introducing what we say Questions that is in addition to just kind of doing the binder answer kind of stop note We are also wants to collect the information so to give the user an ability to enter the data that Potentially adjusts the continuation of the workflow So yes, there is some and more is coming Yes, please at this well This this is a very real and very complex problem, and it is not just here You know it's a similar problem applies to all the kind of DevOps automation tools our solution here is well, we are working on some of the dry run capability is but Simple answer is no we put it on you and how it works is Because this is the code. There are some set of recommended practices and following these practices will help you Partially solve this problem, but there is no easy Kind of there is there is no magic magic bullet here. So the the guys who run in us like Netflix is interesting case they Build something on top of stax drum that runs this automation locally Against a particular set of stops and they build this set of stops then they deploy that to the staging and Then the test that in the staging and there is a kind of they have to pretty much automated the whole thing of moving from the Development quickly check that the action is all right into the staging and into the production But this is the only way so it is more of the process around Test it locally test it again some environments know environment and when confident with the production and what we do is we only support this process when making sure that all our artifacts is the code and Once you commit them into the github and then pull it from a particular branch on another Stax drum box, they'll run exactly the same You don't need to write an agent The like our own remote execution happens over ssh just as ansible is happening sometimes Kind of this is for remote commands. Some people already have the salt stack deployment and use the salt for that time some have like A variety of the tools so no, you know and this tax storm is agent less application We don't need agents most of the time the actions are the call outs to the API endpoints And sometimes these are kind of remote execution action is reach out to ssh and do something there And we have like we actually like if you if you deep dive into that We have a concept of runners and there are some interest in runners for instance for network devices We have this inspect runner that just goes over ssh to the thing And there is a particular way of conveniently parsing or screen scraping the output because some of the devices like part of the problem that We are dressing is some of the integration point simply refuses to integrate So there are some like and legacy is the fact of life for many of us And being able to integrate with the things that are not built for that is yet another thing So as soon as you can programmatically do something with this point you put this into the action and then you run this action There and you can do magic with that, but no, we are not we're not using agents yes, please the So just kind of I'd like to use that not this spaghetti one, but this one So the rule engine is responsible for this so the sensor like architecturally when we the sensors are running In the sensor container this not a docker container is just the kind of the platform component That picks up the bunch of the Python elements and run them and when the sensor fires the trigger It gets into the sensor container and it creates the trigger and puts that into the message bus Then one or multiple rule engines will pick it up and say, okay. I got the trigger. What do I do with that? It evaluates the rule checks that against criteria and then Schedules the action execution action execution request calls into the message bus and it is in the scheduled state And then the next available runner will pick it up and say, okay, like I know to execute actions Here is an action execution acknowledged and then it runs this action execution It completes the execution and it sends the results back into the system and on top of that There are some native fires that say for in an instance of the workflow. They watch the Execution as progresses so that we don't kind of we're not in the black for as long as the action executed I'm here to take more questions kind of to show you around as you can see we can connect to that Get to any level of depth of that Again, thank you reminder you kind of those of you Who like to talk on me a star and with the rest again, thank you and enjoy your Sunday in Pasadena


What's up everyone? It's your girl Kinsey here from Layton Sports Cards and I'm ripping 2021 Panini Prison Football first off the line and hobby two box mixer number 20 random teams. Again, here's a look at the random results. You can always find these at LaytonSportsCards.com under the results tab and link is also in chat for you. All right, here we go. I'm going to start with the Chris Evans, Jalen Phillips, Purple Berry Sanders, Lion, Silver, Jalen Rieger, Snake Skin, I have one box, let's go. Eric Stokes, we've got a Micah Parsons rookie Cowboys, Snake Skin is a Kyler Murray Cardinals, boom! Nice one there, Cardinals, Johnny H. That's sick, kind of an off color match there for the Cardinals. Heck yeah, an emergent Kellan Mon rookie. Yes, we'll mag that Kyler. Tarris Marshall Jr., Jamar Jefferson, Blue Eyes rookie to 99, Justin Fee. Heck yeah, 70 of 99. We'll mag that, Silver Baker Mayfield, a new Panther. Oh, that's gonna work out, but hey, good luck to him. Kenneth Gainwell, Khalil Herbert, we've got, oh my gosh, Purple Ice to 225, Jax Trevor Lawrence. Another one. Jax, Jonathan P. Wow, 41 of 225. We'll mag that one too, Wildcard points, it'll be a random tall at the end. Quity Pay, Greg Russo, Red Wave to 149, the Michael Perrine Jets, new recruits rookie, Mack Jones, Jayman Davis, Ambrit Thomas, Blue Wave to 199, Kyle Van Noy, Patriots. We've got Greenscope, Rookie Otto, Elijah Moore, Jets. No Jets on the color match there, 70 of 75. Marty Rogers, we've got a Kyle Trass rookie, Purple Ice to 225, Fletcher Cox Eagles, fireworks, Justin Herbert. Got Jalen Waddle rookie base, Trayvon Mowrake, got Hyper to 175, Alvin Camara, Saints, some brilliance, Lamar Jackson, right, Luca? This isn't even the first off the line box. Trace Sermon, Jalen Camp, Purple Ice to 225, Fred Warner Niners, Silver Rookie, Kellen Mons, nice one there, Vikings, Ramandre Stevenson on Wuzerike, we've got Orange to 249, Bradley Chubb Broncos, Hype, C.D. Lamb, Keebro Cox, we've got Shuba Hubbard Rookie Panthers, wow, Tray Lantz to 249, Niners, Johnny H. Here you go, nice Tray Lantz, 199 of 249, wow, Lockdown to White Freeny, Dimetric Felton, Jacob Harris, Orange Wave to 60, David Montgomery Bears, and a JJ Watt Silver Cardinals. What a first box, wow. Let's see some shimmers, way up, way up, way up. We've got Kelle Mon Rookie, Blue Shimmer, DK Mackap, that's a sick color match there, to 25 Seahawks, 16 to 25, Saquon, Hyper to 175, Giants, brilliance, Aaron Rodgers, Stevenson, Kenny and Wong-Woo, we've got Kyle Trask, Orange Wave to 60 bucks, Joseph MA, with the box on that one, Silver Caleb Farley Rookie, we've got PS2 Rookie Broncos, Minerts, Broncos, Blue Wave to 199, Drew Sample, Bangles, and Hype, Justin Jefferson. Hey Kyle Trask was almost a starting cornerback there for a minute, send Victor to freeze, Tray McKinney, we've got Noshersh Harris, and Dallas Gord Silver. Oh yeah, well that's cool. Get tickets, Elijah Mitchell, Tray Lance Rookie Base, Niners, Blue Wave to 199, Travis Fulgum, Eagles, and fireworks of Jonathan Taylor. Uh-oh, we're all ready, still have more than half of, uh, first off the line case to go, man. Christian Barmore, Duane Eskridge, we've got Purple Ice to 225, Rocky Asin, Colt Silver, Deuce McAllister, Tutu Atwell, Frank Darby, Purple to 125, Xavier Rhodes, Hype, Blue Ice, Brandon Ayuk to 99, Niners, who do you have? The Panthers, you said? Sean Wrights, J.C. Horn, nice, Red Wave to 149, Givante Williams for the Broncos, Lockdown Silver, Zach Cunningham, Penny Sewell, Nico Collins, we've got Blue, Hype, not Hype, Shimmer to 25, A.J. Dillon-Packers, Red Wave, Anthony Miller-Texens, and Silver, Rocky Asin, Colt. All right, Autos, where you hiding? Anthony Schwartz, Rookie, Brevin Jordan, Blue, Shimmer to 25, Brevin Jordan-Texens, and Silver, Auto of Marquise Colston, Marquise Colston for the Saints. Chupa Hubbard is a undervalued rookie for the Panthers, you got Chupa Hubbard, you've got Tarris Marshall Jr., you've got quite a couple of rookies, Travis D.T. and Junior, Jax, Geary Braywell, Red, Shimmer to 35, Robbie Anderson for the Panthers, there you go, there's a Panthers hit there, it's a Red Shimmer, it's a first off the line exclusive there for you, 23 to 35, Bobby Wagner, Orange and Break, Zach Wilson. Last pack here again, I do have some wild card points I need to random off, got Purple Power coming up, we got Justin Field, Drecky Base, Bears, Albus Ducoramoa, Purple Power of Bobby Wagner for the Seahawks, it's a 49, and we've got Green Shimmer for the Bears, and David Montgomery, one of one, another one, there you go, on the Green Shimmer, one of one, heck yeah, we'll take that, nice, great two box break, yeah we'll mag that, all right give me one second to set up the random for the wild card points here, wild card points, that would be something Synvicta, five and six eleven times, again whatever team ends up on top after eleven rounds, we'll get the wild card points, good luck everybody, one, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, eleven, Patriots, Patriots getting the wild card points, all right do a little recap here for you, had the Marcus Colston Silverado Saints, Elijah Moore on the green scope to 75 Jets, Snake Skin, Kyler Murray Cardinals, Tralance to 249 Niners, Justin Fields, Cracked Ice to 99 Bears, to 225 Trevor Lawrence, Purple Cracked Ice, and then the one of one, Green Shimmer, David Montgomery at four, Dub Bears, all right everyone that'll do it for, this one I believe we got some no huddles coming right up.


Okay, so today we are going to take up rigid body motion previous your questions. Okay. Now rigid body motion is a vast, vast topic. Okay. So at times people, they consider center of mass concept and moment of inertia, all of that also part of rigid body motion. So there is nothing wrong with it. Okay. But in today's class, the focus is more towards, you know, the torque equation and angular momentum and work energy theorem related to rigid body. Okay. So that is what the main focus is. So I will quickly just list down the formulas that we are going to use. All right. So first of all, the torque is the cause of the rotation. The equation torque is equal to i alpha. Okay. Now this equation is valid only about fixed axis. Okay. So torque is equal to i alpha is about the fixed axis or about center of mass axis. Okay. Now, if you change the axis, things will change for torque as in torque will be different about different accesses. Okay. And moment of inertia will be also different about different accesses, but alpha is same. Okay. For entire rigid body, alpha is something which is a constant. So that you should take care of. Okay. Then, you know, at times you have to calculate moment of inertia as well. So you should be aware about parallel axis theorem, which is i is equal to ICM plus total mass of the rigid body into d square. Okay. These two accesses should be parallel. All right. So these are the two equations. And then you have for a planar object, IZ is equal to IX plus IY. IZ is moment of inertia, which is perpendicular to the surface of the object. Fine. So these things we should be taking care of. And when you calculate torque, it is not same as when you calculate force. Like when you calculate force, you just try to see which direction the force is acting and you just add up all the forces. But torque is little tricky to find for torque. There is a formula that r cross f is the torque. Okay. Now you say that torque will do i alpha and then torque is equal to r cross f. Okay. See, this is what the torque is. Okay. And i alpha is the effect of the torque. Fine. So cause is r cross f. You can equate the cause with the effect, which is i alpha. Okay. Now for every force, you need to find out the torque separately. Okay. And the torque could rotate the object in clockwise or anticlockwise direction. So the torque which is rotated in which is trying to rotate in one direction need to be subtracted from the torque that is trying to rotate the object in other direction. Okay. Now this is the vector representation. You can also simply find out the torque. You can also simply find out the torque by finding the perpendicular distance of the force from the axis. Okay. For example, if you have a rod like this and there is a force. Okay. This is the force and suppose this is the axis of rotation. Okay. Then how will you find perpendicular distance from the force?  Okay. So when you drop the perpendicular on the force, this is the perpendicular distance. Fine. So torque due to this force is this perpendicular distance into force. Okay. You can also find the torque by finding the component of force which is perpendicular to the length. For example, this is the force. You find its component along this line which is perpendicular to this distance. Let's say L is a distance L into f cos theta is also torque and f into r cos theta is also the torque. The magnitude comes out to be same. Okay. So you should be very familiar with how to find out the torques and then there is a concept of angular momentum. Fine. So angular momentum of a rigid body about the center of mass is ICM into omega. Okay. Now you will see that in this chapter many things can be like for example torque is there, angular momentum is there. So all these things can be different about different axes. Okay. So you should always think in that manner. Don't think that torque is same about each and every axis, angular momentum is same about each and every axis. Everything is with respect to some axis. Okay. So angular momentum of entire rigid body about a certain point is r cross MVCM plus ICM omega. So I am not getting into too much of derivation. So this is what the angular momentum of a rigid body is. And the angular momentum is not only for the rigid body but for the point object also. For a point object which is moving with velocity V, the angular momentum is r cross its linear momentum P. Okay. So it comes out to be r into M into V. Fine. So this you can also write as perpendicular distance of the velocity multiplied by mass into velocity is the angular momentum of a particle. This is the angular momentum of a rigid body. This is the angular momentum of a particle. Why I am talking about angular momentum of particle because in a system there might be particle as well as a rigid body. Okay. So I hope all you guys have come with a basic revision of the theory part. Okay. That is why I am going little fast. Is it the correct assumption I am making? Yes, sir. Those who are online, I have you guys come with a read of the chapter. Okay. So whenever like for example if you are stuck or you want to interrupt me or want to have any discussion on any particular topic, please feel free to do so. You can WhatsApp me on my personal number. You can message on the Skype. You can message on the group whatever is convenient to you. Okay. So this is with respect to the angular momentum. Okay. Now comes the work energy theorem. Now you might be remembering work energy theorem. We have used it so many times. At least 100 times we have written this formula. So work done on a rigid body is also following the same equation. Okay. Work done is equal to U2 plus K2 minus U1 plus K1. What is U? U is a potential energy and K is the kinetic energy. Okay. Now potential energy can be of two types. Okay. Potential energy usually in mechanics they are of two types. One is elastic potential energy which comes majorly due to the spring and other is gravitational potential energy. Okay. So when you divide the potential energy, you need to find out separately elastic and gravitational potential energy. Now elastic potential energy, there is no change to the formula that remains half Kx square. What about the gravitational potential energy for a rigid body? How you write gravitational potential energy? Gravitational potential energy for a rigid body is MGH center of mass. Because you know when the rigid body is there in space, the points are all over the place. When you say that this is the zero potential energy line, which points height will you take to write MGH as potential energy? You just find out where the center of mass is and find out its height from the zero potential energy line. Okay. Suppose this is HCM. So potential energy of this rigid body will be equal to MGHCM. Okay. So it's I think very straightforward. And kinetic energy, how will you write kinetic energy? It is half M into VCM square plus half ICM into omega square. Okay. It's like you first see what is the kinetic energy with respect to center of mass. You can think like that to remember the formula. With respect to center of mass, every point is rotated about the center of mass axis. You can say half ICM, omega square. And then you have to look at what center of mass is doing. So center of mass, if it is moving with VCM, its kinetic energy will be half MVCM square. Okay. And if there is a fixed axis for a rigid body, the kinetic energy will be simply equal to half moment of inertia about the fixed axis into omega square. Okay. So this is something which you can directly use. And if you're not able to find any fixed axis, you can anyway use this formula. You will get the same quantity. Getting it. So this is I have just dressed up all the formulas that are required in today's session. Fine. Any doubt with respect to any concept, just feel free to, you know, ask any one of you any doubts, any small concept which you want me to discuss. Fine. So we will start with, you know, I'll just give you a few questions and then let's see how it progresses. Suppose you have a square plate. Okay. The side length of the square plate is A. Okay. And you are applying forces on this square plate like this. One force is like that. Then another force like this. This is 30 degrees. Then there is another force F like that. And then there is a force in this direction. Okay. You need to find out the torque about this axis that comes out of this plane. Okay. About this axis, what is a torque? Let me come back to that in some time. Should I do it? Just a second. So is it F A into 7 plus root 3 by 8? So is it by 4? What are you saying? F A into 7 plus root 3 by 4. Whole by 4? Yeah. Okay. Those who are online, are you getting this? Sir by 4. Those who are on YouTube, are you able to get this answer? Okay. Now let's see. Here you have talked you to this force is what from this axis, what is the perpendicular distance of this force? The perpendicular distance of this force is this much, which is how much? A by 2. Okay. This force is also A by 2. And this force perpendicular distance is also A by 2. Okay. So these three forces, it is very easy to find the torque. Now, can you see that all these three forces are trying to rotate this object in same direction? And this force is trying to rotate in this direction, that force like that and this force the upper one also trying to rotate it like this. So all these three talks will be added up. Okay. So F into A by 2 is a torque due to one of them into 3. This is a total torque due to these three forces. Okay. Now let us see the torque due to this force. Okay. Now one way is to find out the perpendicular distance of this force from the axis. That will be little difficult in this particular situation. So what we will do, we will find out the component of forces in two direction and we will say that this force will be as if it is a combination of two forces. One is in this direction which is F sin 30 and one in that direction which is F cos 30. Okay. Now you can see that both F sin 30 and F cos 30. They both are also trying to rotate in the same direction. So torque due to F sin 30 and F cos 30 both will be added up. Like you know for F sin 30 it will be F sin 30 into A by 2. Okay. And for F cos theta, F cos 30, the torque is F cos 30 into A by 2. All of you done this? Yes sir. Okay. So like this you can find out the torque in this particular situation. Okay. So do this question. You have a circle or let's say you have a disc. Okay. You have a disc which is free to rotate about this axis. Okay. So you know this disc is vertical right now. Okay. It is vertical. The axis and due to gravity is like this. Okay. This axis is horizontal and this disc can you know flip over. For example, when it flips over the disc will be something like this. Getting it. So this is the center. Okay. This distance is R by 2. The radius of this disc is R. The mass is M. You need to find out what is the angular velocity this disc gains when it flips over. All of you got this question? Yes sir. Solve it now. What will do here? Any particular equation comes in your mind? That work energy theorem? So what do we have to find in the end? Angular velocity when it flips over. Okay sir. So the question is you have this red horizontal line. You can see about this line this disc can flip over. Okay. So basically this disc is rotating about this line. You need to find out what is the angular velocity of the disc when it flips over. Okay. So is it a root of 8 by 3 into G by R? Root of 8 by 3 into? G by R under the root only. G by R. This is what you are getting? Yeah. Is this what others are also getting? So I am getting 2 root G by R. Okay. I am getting 8 by 3 root over 8 by 3 G by R. Oh then I did something wrong. Okay. Naman is also getting same thing. Okay. Those who are online, are you able to solve it? Okay. So what I will do, see every mechanics problem like this where you apply conservation of energy, you need to assume one horizontal line to be zero potential energy. Where do you think that is appropriate here? Red line. Red line, you can just, I mean, you know, don't spend a lot of time identifying it because that is something, you know, the answer is independent of it. So wherever you see some logical choice, just go with that. Okay. So you can see that this is zero gravitational potential energy. Okay. So initial gravitational potential is what? Initial is mg into R by 2. Right. Central mass is here, which is at a height of R by 2 from the zero potential G line. And final potential energy is minus mg R by 2 because the center of mass has gone below a height of R by 2. Okay. And K1 is what? K1 is zero. Initial kinetic energy of this entire system is zero. And K2 is what? K2, you can see, you can see that this red line of fixed axis, right? So you can write kinetic energy as half into I about fixed axis into omega square. Yes or no? Yes, sir. Okay. And also, you know, use that formula half MVCM square plus half ICM omega square. That will also give you the same answer. But whenever you have a fixed axis, you can write the kinetic energy of the fixed kinetic energy of the rigid body as half I into half I about fixed axis into omega square. That will easily give you the answer for kinetic energy. Now, the problem is that fixed axis is not something that passes through the center of mass. So you need to find out what it is. Okay. So we know that moment of inertia about this axis that comes out of the disk is what? MR square by 2. Okay. So after that, we use Papandika's theorem to find out moment of inertia about this dotted line. How much it is about this moment of inertia will be MR square by 4, right? Because for the disk about this is MR square by 2. So I'll say that that is IZ which is equal to IX plus IY. Now, both these axes, they are similar. Okay. So two times of moment of inertia about this axis is equal to MR square by 2. So about this horizontal axis moment of inertia is MR square by 4. Okay. Once I get moment of inertia about this axis, since this is passing through the center of mass and this red line is parallel to this dotted line, I can use parallel axis theorem to find moment of inertia about the fixed axis, which is what? MR square by 4 plus M into R by 2 whole square. Because I'm going a distance of R by 2, the distance between these two parallel axes is R by 2. Okay. So this will give you MR square by 2 as moment of inertia about this fixed axis. Fine. So this you have to use here and work done is zero. There is no force that is doing any work. Okay. So this is how you guys have done? Yes sir, but I made a silly mistake. So I took a wrong moment of inertia. Okay. So that is something which is very common. People make errors like that. Okay. So, you know, immediately you have to see about which, I mean, is there any fixed axis and about that axis only you have to write half I omega square as kinetic energy. And if you do not, if you're not able to find out any fixed axis, use the formula half ICM omega square plus half MVCM square. Okay. That way you'll be safer.


I can't hear you. It says you're connecting to now. Now you need to unmute. You're still muted? Yeah. Yes. Hi Toby. No, sorry I was, because it's like as soon as I joined it says that this meeting has been recorded and I think the reason is that in the settings that I put like automatically record meeting. Alright. Yeah. So now


WeRUA is the university's faculty and staff giving campaign to support colleges, schools, and programs across our campus. By participating, faculty and staff enable our institution to achieve its mission of advancing teaching, research, and service at the highest level. I don't think of being here as being a job. I think it's a career and so I think you support every way that you can with whatever level that you can. It's very important that not just the student but we as the community that we take care of our own place of employment and that we can give back. I am Ron Dulick. We are UA. I'm Amelia Delas Reyes. We are UA. Visit UA.edu forward slash we are UA today to make a gift to support the college, school, or program of your choice.


I'm loving my post-grad studies because you get live briefs and I really like the practical experiences you can get from the brief. I kind of realized that before I joined that you can do like actual campaigns for real companies and that really attracted me to this degree. And they really inspire me to push myself and to create the best work I can. If I want to specifically say the subject or the help which I got from the University of Greenwich I would say it's phenomenal. It is a very international university where you can meet people from all around the world, different cultures. It's a very open-minded university.