-------------------------------------------
Breakthrough Junior Challenge 2017: How to win everywhere or What is a Game Theory - Duration: 3:00.
In my opinion life is a kind of game where we achieve our goals
Today my dear friends i want to share with you about how to play this game or to be precise
what is a game theory game theory is a method of finding optimal
strategies in games using math in the concept of the game theory a game is a process in
which two or more participants are fighting to realize their interests each of the participants
uses a certain strategy which depending on the decision of other players can lead to
a win or loss now let`s talk about how it`s started first concepts of game theory were
described in the classic book of great mathematicians like John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern
in 19 and 44 at that time all the concepts of game theory analyzed zero sum games where
winners win at the expense of losers as an example this is poker where one picks all
the bets of others then in 19 and 49 mathematician John Nash develops methods of analysis where
all participants either win or lose despite the fact they competed these situations were
called non-cooperative equilibrium or nash equilibrium which i will explain later as
a result of this research game theory has become popular in economics business science
psychology computer science and biology despite this fact the game theory is everywhere around
us and to prove it let`s get acquainted with one main paradox of game theory which tells
if people don`t cooperate with each other and think only themselves then often situations
where everyone loses are developed for example let`s imagine two cousins Sam
and Bob who by unimaginable coincidence wanted to sell unique glowing socks that spencer
wore in Icarly Since they are brothers Bob and Sam make an
agreement to sell socks by equally high prices their initial profit was 300$ each one day
Bob decides to lower his prices what makes him earning 400$ sam notices that his profit
has fallen to two hundreds and also reduces his prices to return customers after this
Bob and Sam start earning 50$ less than if they agreed to cooperate this state is called
Nash equilibrium because it`s beneficial to save this balance since any change except
agreement will worsen their financial situations for that reason large companies compete in
non-price range and try to distinguish their products from others by making innovations
and improvements but in most cases the best outcome is only possible when cooperating
anyway cooperate or not ..... is your choice
-------------------------------------------
3 Easy Ways to Increase Your Online Revenue by 15% (or More) Without Acquiring New Customers - Duration: 1:57.
For more infomation >> 3 Easy Ways to Increase Your Online Revenue by 15% (or More) Without Acquiring New Customers - Duration: 1:57. -------------------------------------------
LIVE Questions & Answer to Pass Your Road Test First Time or Starting a Career as a CDL Driver - Duration: 0:56.
[LIVE QUESTION & ANSWERS - 1 Oct 2017 6pm PST]
Hi there smart drivers. Rick with Smart Drive Test.
Are you on the road to earning your license,
and want to pass first time? Tune in for the live feed tomorrow
where I answer your questions about passing your road test first time
or starting a career as a truck or bus driver, or you just have
if you just have general questions about general driving, we'll answer those too.
1 October 2017, 6pm PST
Mark your calendars. Click the link below, or if you're on Facebook
maybe it's up there [POINTING UP]. Show up
for the live feed tomorrow 6pm PST and we'll answer all your questions
about driving, passing a road test, or starting a career as
a truck or bus driver.
I'm Rick with Smart Drive Test. Thanks very much for watching.
Good luck on your road test. And remember, pick the best answer
not necessarily the right answer. Have a great day, bye now.
(OPENING CREDITS & MUSIC)
-------------------------------------------
The Open Mind: Constitutional Crisis or Consensus? - Justin Dyer - Duration: 28:45.
HEFFNER: I'm Alexander Heffner, your host on The Open Mind.
Our constitution works.
Our great Republic is government of laws
and not of men.
Here, the people rule.
Newly sworn in president Gerald Ford reassured
the nation with those words.
Even as he recovered from personal defeat against
then Governor Jimmy Carter,
Ford embraced an America enshrined in liberty,
in his final State of the Union in 1977,
reporting to the nation.
"The genius of the American system is that
the opposition party doesn't go underground,
but goes on functioning vigorously,
and our vigilant press goes right on probing
and publishing our faults and follies,
confirming the wisdom of the Framers of the
First Amendment." Oh, the words of a statesmen
do we regret not hearing in what appears to be increasingly
a fractured, discordant age of American democracy.
And, according to public opinion surveys,
Republican voters are increasingly abandoning
faith in these institutions,
and voters broadly share in an abundance of distrust.
Today, we explore this transformation and the
constitutional state of play in our politics,
from the statehouse to the campus,
with University of Missouri professor,
Justin Dyer, Director of the Kinder Institution
on Constitutional Democracy, Dyer convenes what he
calls the first-ever self consciously
inter-ideological center for the study of American
political thought and history, and I welcome him today.
Justin, thank you.
DYER: Thanks for having me.
HEFFNER: As you think about constitutional
crisis, it seems to me we're exploring
that along two parallels.
There's the crisis of what seems to be increasingly
autocratic governance, and then,
at the same time, there's the crisis that seems to
be a widening gap in the way we interpret the constitution.
DYER: Well, I think what we've been trying
to do a lot at the Kinder Institute is take a long
view of some of these issues,
and think historically about where we are,
where we've come from.
And in some ways it helps, I don't know if this is
encouraging or not, to remember how divided
we've been in our past.
And so, we are at a, a moment of crisis in all
sorts of different ways, we have challenges.
I'm thinking about our constitutional consensus.
What is it that unites us as a people?
What is it that draws us together?
But it's also helpful sometimes I think,
to remember that our campaigns and elections
have been vicious from the very beginning,
that we have had moments of crisis leading up to,
ultimately, civil war, where 600,000 American lives were lost.
We've had moments where, you know,
the sitting Vice President of the United States
shot and killed our former Treasury Secretary in a duel.
Uh, so we've had challenges in terms of
political discourse for a long time.
But there seems to be something unique,
I think, in the present moment,
and unique in the modern era,
in terms of just how divided we seem to be on
college campuses, in our public discourse at large,
in our cable news, and in some ways,
it might be returning to a previous era.
HEFFNER: What is that previous era?
DYER: Well, you know, our associate director
for the Kinder Institute, Jeff Pasley's a historian
who studies the early print media,
and how early journalists influenced politics.
And he'll, you'll have a conversation with him
every once in a while and he'll say something like,
oh, that's so 19th century.
But even having somebody like Steve Bannon
in the White House, who's a journalist by training,
who's working directly in the White House,
this is not unprecedented in American history,
and this is something that we had early on.
We had a partisan press early on.
Most of the newspapers around the country are,
are throwbacks form a time when a political party
actually ran the newspaper and, and owned the newspaper.
And so in some ways, I think,
you know, history begins to rhyme,
and you see things that are, are repeating itself.
And so we've, we've had moments of challenge in our history.
I think, going back to those moments of
challenges is important for us,
to try to understand where we've come from,
uh, and where we are right now, in this moment.
And this moment, it's unique,
but it's not unprecedented.
HEFFNER: There are red states,
blue states, and there are red districts and blue districts.
How do we try to bring together these
constituencies, which you do at the institute,
with students of a spectrum of political identities.
How, how do you being to revive consensus.
DYER: One of the things that's encouraged me,
is to realize how, for all the talk of polarization,
for all of our talk about how divided congress is,
for how divided the American people are,
and even these polarized districts,
Republican districts and, and Democratic districts
that are safe districts, the American people are
not that far apart from each other.
And when you bring people together,
public opinion polls will, will often demonstrate
this, that the, the um, that the median opinion
of people, often will be closer to the center
than their representatives in these polarized districts.
And so there's a way in which congress itself
might be more polarized than the American
electorate, uh, because of the way that we draw
districts, because of uh, the way that we run our elections.
With students on campus, my,
my experience has been very good,
that students are engaged, they're interested,
they want to learn, they want to talk to each other.
My experience with faculty has been the same,
that I have, uh, faculty across the political
spectrum in the political science department
at the University of Missouri, we have faculty across the
political spectrum in the Kinder Institute.
And yet we have been part of a common intellectual
project, we've talked together,
uh, we've mutually explored different topics.
We don't always agree but we've,
we've had a good experience doing this.
And it's so counter to the narrative
that you hear today in the media to, to know
that that's going on on college campuses.
HEFFNER: So, if you take an instance like
Charlottesville, and what we saw to be s domestic
terrorism incident, when you look at the young men
who were constituted in that alt-right,
or racist resurgence, how do you,
how does your interaction with the student body
inform the way that you look at these
predominantly young men who,
who were instigating this crisis in Charlottesville.
DYER: I think it's a huge challenge.
We have to know more about eh alt-right first.
We have to know more about what we're thinking about.
There's a political scientist
at the University of Alabama named George Holley who
just wrote a book with Columbia University Press,
on the alt-right.
and so far as I know, he's one of the only academics
studying the movement and trying to understand
really what's motivating the people who show up
in Charlottesville.
But I think a couple of things to take away or,
or even think about as we're looking at that is,
as far as the media accounts that came out
after the event, it sounds like most of the people
were from out of state, or at least not from Charlottesville.
They were not students at the University of Virginia.
And it's helpful to even keep that in mind
as we're talking about polarized campuses,
or polarized student bodies,
that the students at the University of Virginia,
so far as I can tell, were united against
what they saw as, as those violent protests on their campus.
And so, Republicans and Democrats,
liberals and conservatives,
I think could unite, uh, around this idea
that what those protestors are doing is not only problematic but evil.
And I think that we, we have to be able to,
to have moral clarity when we talk about these issues.
HEFFNER: Within the constitutional parameters,
you know, how you can take disaffected youth
who may not be enrolled in civic institutions,
and bring the set of values that you teach at the institute?
DYER: I don't know if there's an easy answer to that. It's a...
HEFFNER: There are no... DYER: Generational,
HEFFNER: Easy question or answers,
DYER: There's never an easy answer.
I think it's a generational challenge.
I think it's multifaceted. It's largely cultural.
It's not any one institution's responsibility.
Or maybe to put that a different way,
it's all of our responsibilities in our
various institutions that we work in,
to try to address this problem.
But having thoughtful, civil discourse on issues
that matter is extremely important.
So, how do we do that?
We have to have at last some shared framework
to approach these issue.
It's never gonna be 100 percent consensus.
We're never going to get 100 percent of the people on board.
But we need to have a dominant cultural
framework, where we understand that the point
of discussion, debate, is the pursuit of truth,
that there's something to understand together
and that we're mutually engaged in this project,
to understand more, to grow in wisdom,
to grow in truth, and if we don't have that basic
framework for our debates, if it's simply power
politics or power struggles,
then there's no coherent framework to think
of why we would engage in civil discourse
and debate together in the first place.
HEFFNER: If you think about the historical
foundation that's required,
when you hear that Ford quote,
in his final state of the union,
when he's handing the torch to newly elected
President Carter, and he is reminding Americans
about the important, decisive role that the
free press played in the accountability
of our democracy, do you think that that is still
relevant today.
And do you think that the body politic is still
interested in, in that legacy.
DYER: I hope they're interested in that,
interested in that legacy.
I certainly think that it remains as important as
ever, to have a free press, to have a vigilant press.
It sounds like high philosophy,
but the basic underlying premises of,
of the American constitutional order
begins with the words in the Declaration of
Independence, that we're all created equal,
that we're endowed by our creator with certain
inalienable rights.
And then it moves on, I think very importantly
to just governments being derived from the consent
of the governed.
And this idea of the consent of the governed
really goes back to the idea of human beings
as rational animals.
And, and, again, it sounds like high philosophy,
but we're the kinds of beings that can give
and understand reasons for our actions.
And what does that mean, exactly.
It means that we should expect others to rule us
with our consent.
Those who have positions of authority and power
over us, by giving and receiving reasons.
And all of these things end up going together.
We're going to give rational arguments to one another.
We are gonna be ruled with our consent.
We're gonna have the rights to petition the
government for a redress of grievances.
And we need a free people with a free press to be
able to have this, uh, experiment move forward.
HEFFNER: You wrote along with your codirector,
your deputy director in the Kansas City Star,
"American universities have come off in recent
news as lonely, dangerous, and polarizing places."
"Mazoo," your home state and university,
University of Missouri, "has been at the center
of this storm, and yet our experience of American
academia has been very different from the
simplified reports in the media." You go on to
write, "When our classes and public lectures take
on controversial topics, we keep it one a
philosophical and historical plane while
still tackling difficult issues,
and highlighting different perspectives."
When you think of free speech on campus now,
there's been a revival of, of interest in that
subject, and there have been various episodes
we've discussed on this program,
most recently with Caitlyn Flanagan who's written
about this in the Atlantic Magazine.
One of the paradoxes, and I smile,
thinking of what you said, rational animals,
as if that's not oxymoronical or
paradoxical in some way, which is,
the right to free speech, um,
I don't think liberals or conservatives can bake
their cake and eat it too.
And I think there's a lot of baking of cakes
and eating it too in both quarters of,
whether you identify yourself as more
progressive or conservative.
Case in point, if you look at the idea that
universities should be able to invite,
or constituencies within universities should be
able to invite speakers from a wide variety
of thought, um, in the same breath,
institutions of higher learning,
with admissions policies or their hiring practices,
have to exert a moral compass in determining
their free speech boundaries.
There's a suit being filed by rejected students,
claming that affirmative action disadvantaged them,
white students.
And I don't understand, help me understand,
if you think about the constitutional right to
free speech, just as Citizens United,
for better or for worse, gave companies the right
to have that speech as much as individuals,
why, why would not a Harvard or a University
of Missouri be able to have the right to admit
students, not just on the basis of scores,
on the basis of character, if we're saying
that we want to invite free thought,
doesn't it apply to these institutions as much
as it does to individuals.
DYER: Yes, and you raise an interesting question,
I think, and it goes back to these dual rights
that are both in the, the First Amendment.
It's the freedom of association and the
freedom of speech, and how we think about the
interplay between those two different things
that we value as a society.
Can an organization, it might be different
if it's public or private.
But do they have a freedom of association to decided
which students they're going to admit,
and which students they're going to reject,
and the grounds and the reasons for why they might
reject those students? I think it's complicated.
As I said before, all these questions are difficult.
On the freedom of speech side of it,
I, I think one of the things that I think we
need to do is try to get a better handle on why
we protect freedom of speech in the first place.
Thre's a generation of students I think
that have forgotten the fundamental rationale
of having free speech and free discourse,
particularly free speech you disagree with.
And the underlying assumption that,
going into the, the protection for free speech,
is that there's something for us to debate
and discuss, and come to together,
that we can arrive at some knowledge together,
and that allowing the opposition to have its
say, is a fundamental part of that process.
But it's a process, and the process requires norms
of civility, it requires rigorous inquiry,
it requires truthfulness and honesty,
and when that starts to break down,
when you have people on campus that are simply
trying to provoke, when you have people on the
internet, you know, you just had an episode about
internet trolling and what that looks like,
and even some of it's computerized,
that, when we have that, our discourse breaks down
precisely because it doesn't have an end
or a purpose anymore.
There's no point to what we're doing other than to
simply provoke one another.
And I think that's a real challenge...
HEFFNER: Right.
DYER: And something we have to work on.
HEFFNER: As long as trolls are the dominant actor
on social media, it's becoming anti-social media.
DYER: Yeah, exactly.
And, and I think so much of...
HEFFNER: And, and,
DYER: Yeah.
HEFFNER: Speakers who, whose design is to come
to campus to provoke and not debate,
I'm wondering, where do you draw the line,
Justin, from your experience,
where you view their intent as either
malicious, but not, certainly not deliberative
in welcoming other debate, and therefore you say,
this issue, for example Nazism...
DYER: Yeah.
HEFFNER: And Richard Spencer.
When do you say, this issue is closed
and not open for debate.
DYER: We have, going back to this idea
of free speech and, and what its purpose is,
I think we have to be able to make qualitative
judgments about the value of, of speech.
And what I mean by that is,
is that we're not relativists.
The Supreme Court, in a case called Cohen versus
California, famously involving a guy who wrote
F the draft on his jacket, went into a courthouse,
the court's deciding whether this is protected speech.
And Justice Harlan has a famous line where he says
that, that one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric.
And I don't think that's true at all.
I don't think that we're complete relativists,
that one man's vulgarity is another man's lyric.
I think we actually can make judgments in this
area, and decided what speech is better
and what speech is worse, whether somebody engages
thoughtfully, whether they're actually engaged
in simply provocation.
Now, having said that, I don't think that means
that the speech that's simply a provocation,
or the speech that is not engaged in the serious
discussion inquiry, should therefore be penalized
with the force of law. I think that there are good,
prudential reasons why we don't do that,
and why we don't want to do that.
When is it illegal, or when could it punished
with the force of law?
And I think that if you had a good attorney in
here, they could give you a list of reasons,
but they would certainly include making threats
against other people, threatening damage to
other people's person and property,
and that crosses a line, and I think that's what
you saw in Charlottesville. That's not free speech.
Um, when you're engaged in,
in threats and intimidation,
when you provoke others to violence,
we're talking about something different,
and that's never been constitutionally protected.
HEFFNER: Is that because of misinterpretations
of the constitution itself, or is it
because of behavior that is not being explicitly condemned,
or sufficiently condemned?
DYER: Well, I certainly think in,
and I said this earlier, that we do have to condemn
what we see as evil and false and dangerous and,
and call it what it is.
There's been a, a problem, I think on campuses
generally, where we often will trot out these values
that we hold, as a campus.
And so we'll talk about some value that we have,
but we've lost the moral language,
I think to, to criticize speech for,
for being evil, for being dangerous,
for being assaultive of persons.
On the other hand, and I'm coming back now to,
to the actual legal questions.
Should the speech be, um, legally protected,
and I'd say, if it's peaceful, yes.
When the speech is no longer peaceful,
that's when it's no longer constitutionally protected speech.
And we have to have some criteria to be able to
judge when it's no longer peaceful.
But certainly threatening another person,
encouraging others to act out in violence against
another person, that, that has never been part
of what we consider to be constitutionally protected speech.
HEFFNER: Well there was a story recently in the
New York Times about how some of these propagandists
have hijacked YouTube, so the problem is not
specific, although we did explore,
with Nick Monaco bots, specifically on Twitter
it's not specific to Twitter. It's YouTube as well.
I was thinking, as you were speaking, of info-wars.
What it the design of that speech? It's not peaceful.
The title, whether it's acting or real life,
or impersonating crises, or fabricating crises,
there is really not a yearning for peaceful speech.
Give us hope, Justin.
DYER: I think that the students that I interact
with, the colleagues that I interact with,
a lot of the people day to day,
if you sit down one on one with somebody,
it really is possible to have a serious
conversation, to not agree with each other at the end
of the day, but to understand better where
each one comes from, to disagree well,
as we like to say.
And I think that really is possible,
and people can do that.
The real challenge, potentially for us,
I think in the modern era, has to do with all these
technologies that you're talking about.
What does that do to our public discourse?
We saw an op-ed piece the other day that talked
about smartphones as our handheld hate machines.
And we, we do have a, I think a way in which
the social media becomes anti-social media,
the, the national media organizations become
very partisan and polarizing.
And, and that becomes a challenge.
I don't know that there's any legal solution.
I wouldn't advocate a legal solution to this.
But we do have to develop a better culture together, as a people.
HEFFNER: What about a constitutional solution.
I don't mean a convention but I mean,
when we had Neal Katyal here,
who has argued before the Supreme Court numerous
times, he had recently authored an op-ed on
constitutional consensus and how,
in a certain set of cases, there was more consensus
that the court was arriving at,
and yet in these recent sessions,
that was a few years ago, they seemed to be
betraying the promise that they all have,
they all say, individually,
privately, the justices, that they want more,
seven to two or six to three decisions.
Is there any template through which you think
the court can uh, aspire to,
to better, to model decisions that are not
going to be so divisive?
DYER: Well I think there could be a way that the
court is more deferential to,
to popular majorities.
And I know that's difficult because it,
every single case is going to be a different case,
and you're gonna talk about different issues,
particularly with rights claims.
The court has the, a counter majoritarian
function, where they're protecting minorities in
rights against a majority.
Uh, but there, there might be some wisdom
to the court being more deferential to what
legislators are doing, to what popular majorities are doing.
There might be some wisdom to being deferential
to states in the federal system.
If we're worried, as you began the discussion with,
trends at the national level,
in terms of concentration of power and the use of
power at the national level,
there might be wisdom in the federal system.
There might be wisdom in deferring to the authority
of states on some of these issues but it's,
it's a thicket, and you get into each one of these
things individually, and it's gonna be challenging
and, and difficult.
But, thinking about the constitutional consensus
question, do we as a people have anything
like a constitutional consensus.
And I think in some sense we,
we, because we're so agreed on some fundamental
things, we don't even think about it anymore,
the fact that we are agreed on them.
So if I stood up in, in a classroom and I asked
the students to raise their hands if they thought
that we should have a kingship, or if we should dissolve
the national legislature, or if we should have a
national church, nobody would raise their hands.
We do have a consensus on some of those
fundamentals, in terms of constitutions.
But it's really on the divisive,
often right's claim kinds of questions,
often the flash button uh, cultural issues
that we have the, the most divisive responses
from people on.
And the Supreme Court is right in the middle of all those issues.
HEFFNER: But do you think that,
of, among those not enrolled in your classes
or your university the answers might be
drastically different.
In some surveys they have proven different.
DYER: Yeah, they might be.
So, civic knowledge is something that we
have to work on, as a country.
And I don't know that the answers would be different
because people formed hard opinions on these questions.
It's that they're not even aware that the questions
exist, that if you ask people,
just civic surveys about the three branches of
government, about the nation versus the state,
about who are representatives are,
about who the President is,
a shocking number of people don't have answers
to those questions.
And if we as a people want to continue this
experiment in self-government,
we have to be engaged, and thoughtfully
engaged in this process.
HEFFNER: You said before, a possible prescription
is deference to states or localities and that,
the picture of government overreach can further
drive that distrust.
And if the judicial branch is not honoring the will
of the people in Missouri or Montana or wherever,
that can precipitate conflict or crisis.
Beyond that, Justin, do we have to accept the war
between the strict constructionists and the
living constitutionalists, some of them who consider
themselves also textualists?
But, I, I'm just thinking in my mind about American
history as a point-counterpoint,
whether it's the Federal Bank or the Civil War,
but it seems like, uh, in our arsenal of,
of capacity to deliberate, there
are some significant limitations.
If we had just one Lincoln-Douglas exchange
on reproductive rights, abortion,
affirmative action, maybe these hot button issues
would cool down. No?
DYER: I doubt they would cool down,
but I think the fact that you highlight those issues
in particular, I think gets to something when
we're talking about the constitution.
So we are divided.
We have different approaches
to constitutional interpretation.
As you mentioned, there are strict
constructionists, originalists, living constitutionalists.
Some of these categories blend in all sorts
of different ways when people are talking about this.
But two points about that, one is that those
categories have existed from the beginning.
The founders themselves divided over issues of
constitutional interpretation in really
profound ways that was really,
really divisive as they're having their own debates
about constitutional interpretation.
And then second, we're actually not that divided
on most issues of constitutional interpretation.
And what I mean by that is,
if you read the constitution,
it lays out our political institutions.
We know the way that we're gonna have a President,
the way that we're gonna elect our president.
We've had a, a peaceful transition of power,
every presidential election. And that's not a small deal.
I mean that's, that's something that's extremely important.
On the other hand, the issues that you're talking
about are almost entirely 14th Amendment issues.
And the 14th Amendment is protecting life,
liberty, and property for individuals against
deprivation by state governments.
Because of that, the Supreme Court has gotten
into hugely expansive areas,
interpretations of what it actually means to have
life or have liberty taken from somebody.
And those are our hot button cultural issues.
Those, I think, often are what law professors spend
their days writing about when they're doing
constitutional interpretation.
And I don't know what a, than an extended
Lincoln-Douglas debate is gonna solve that issue
for us, anymore than it solved the issue of slavery
for Lincoln and Douglas.
HEFFNER: Justin thanks so much for being here today.
DYER: Thanks for having me.
HEFFNER: And thanks to you in the audience.
I hope you join us again next time,
for a thoughtful excursion into the world of ideas.
Until then, keep an open mind.
Please visit The Open Mind website at
Thirteen.org/OpenMind to view this program online,
or to access over 1,500 other interviews.
And do check us out on Twitter and Facebook,
@OpenMindTV for updates on future programing.
-------------------------------------------
How to show This PC or My PC icon on Desktop in Windows 10 | Computer Tips Bangla - Duration: 0:56.
Hello everybody, first of all you need to click on mouse right button
Then select and click on "Personalize" or go to Settings> Personalization
click on the "Themes"
Then "Desktop icon settings"
Under Desktop Icons, check the boxes next to the icons you would like to have appear on your desktop.
Select Apply and OK
Thank you for watching this video
-------------------------------------------
Man & Woman on Zombie Drug "Cloud Nine" or "Flakka" in Brazil - Duration: 0:30.
Man & Woman on Zombie Drug "Cloud Nine" or "Flakka" in Brazil.
-------------------------------------------
Culture or cohesion? System pivotal to success - Duration: 9:54.
Culture or cohesion? System pivotal to success
Culture or cohesion? System pivotal to success. What is more important to sporting success, culture or cohesion? Liam Napier speaks to a former Wallaby attempting to put data above mythology.
Culture is often used to justify success or failure in sport. The All Blacks win regularly, so their culture is good. The Warriors lose, so theirs is not right. or so the theory goes.
The very concept of culture is a broad, vague explanation, though. Certainly not one that embraces all aspects. Former Wallabies prop Ben Darwin and his Gain Line Analytics is drilling much deeper.
With data sourced from the army, Nasa and business schools, and then applied to sport, his research suggests cohesion and continuity are far more important - and that the rugby world may be catching the All Blacks.
The oft-pushed notion around the All Blacks is their culture is fundamentally different to any other sports team. Historically, opposition from the Northern Hemisphere in particular have contributed hugely to this mystical aura of near invincibility.
We dont really see it that way, Darwin said. We think the All Blacks are an amazing system and the culture is the outcome rather than the cause.
Our research has told us that a whole bunch of amazing teams have a terrible culture; people hating each other and acting diabolically badly..
Darwin points to the AFLs West Coast Eagles, who made the finals 15 out of 17 years but had senior players encouraging drug use.
Victorian Cricket, the Australian cricket team of the 1980s and even variations of the mafia who ran successful business operations but conducted themselves poorly, are other bad cultures Darwin cites.
There are lots of examples where you can get a lot of ratbags but if theyre well put together, even if theyre behaving terribly off the field, its effective.
When the whole Respect and Responsibility review about the behaviour of New Zealand rugby came out, that was at odds with the idea about the All Blacks..
Darwin and Gain Line are not interested in studying behaviour. Research has led them to believe continuity of system is the greatest driver to the acquisition of skill.
With a small aligned system, this is where the All Blacks sit top of the tree. Provincial teams feed directly into Super Rugby franchises, allowing familiarity and inherent understanding to develop between players far quicker than their rivals.
Australian rugby, for instance, has never been as strong as 1991-2001, a golden decade when they won two World Cups and a Lions series but had two or three main teams.
Attempting to take on the NRL and AFL by expanding to five teams only eroded cohesion. Darwin says when the Wallabies won the 1999 World Cup, the squad featured nine Queenslanders.
The All Blacks have been coming out of quite a few small pockets over the last 15 years, particularly around Christchurch. The talent is not coming out of Auckland because the way their team is set up is pretty awful.
The Auckland system right now inhibits a production of talent. The kids that go elsewhere do great things because of the systems, not because they are great players.
I dont think the skill gap between New Zealand and everyone else is that big, its the cohesion gap thats huge.
While Darwin feels New Zealands strength lies in its ability to swiftly build combinations, he argues the All Blacks peaked in 2008 and many of the leading nations are now reeling them in.
This theory is based on points percentage per win. Results are skewed by the mismanagement of Australian and South African rugby but, on average, Darwin claims the All Blacks now win by less against Six Nations teams.
We dont know whether the All Blacks are getting worse. We just know other countries are getting better. Across world rugby, particularly the Northern Hemisphere, the cohesion of the teams is increasing.
The world is starting to catch up to the All Blacks in certain areas. The hard part for New Zealand is they can only make marginal gains.
If they keep doing everything they are, the world will keep getting closer because the world is getting better set up..
The importance of cohesion, Darwin argues, is further illustrated by the Warriors and Gain Lines set of markers for the NRL, which he claims is 85 per cent accurate.
Hit 7/10 of these markers and teams can challenge for the Premiership; 9/10 is dynasty territory.
The Warriors have never hit those markers in their entire history. Theyve never had enough stability of system. Theyve never had enough continuity of players. Theyve never been settled enough to build anything, both in their attack and defence..
Continuity was prevalent in Englands 2003 Rugby World Cup-winning team. Darwin says Clive Woodwards Dads Army had to stay together much longer as, other than their Leicester contingent, they did not possess the required domestic cohesion.
This same concept stretches to recruitment, which Darwin says doesnt work en masse - a worrying signal for the Warriors, who havent got the best from Roger Tuivasa-Sheck or Issac Luke and have fellow Kiwis Adam Blair and Gerard Beale on the way for next season.
Look no further than the Highlanders of 2013, when Maa Nonu, Tony Woodcock, Brad Thorn and other high-profile players moved south but the team won only three of 16 games to see issues.
Big spending at the Newcastle Knights also didnt help mastercoach Wayne Bennett..
Darwin says teams are better off being patient and building with young players who learn faster than those thrust into new environments.
When you look at a player at another club, its a mirage. Hes in that system; doing that job with those players. When you bring them to you, what a surprise it doesnt work out the same way..
Nonus career is a classic case. Throughout his struggles to consistently perform in Super Rugby, he had no trouble stepping up for the All Blacks or in his final season at the Hurricanes.
In both those teams, long-time midfield partner Conrad Smith was alongside him. Theres a big difference between form and cohesion and a lot of people make that mistake. NSW make that mistake every year with State of Origin..
Indeed, Queensland have claimed 11 of the past 12 Origins mainly due to their consistent personnel.
In 2014, NSWs last win, the Maroons spine did not function with the same fluidity after Daly Cherry-Evans replaced Cooper Cronk, who broke his arm early in game one.
Not only have Cameron Smith, Cronk and Billy Slater formed such an innate understanding of set plays at domestic level but the majority of the Maroons come from the Broncos, Cowboys and Storm - three teams with the highest level of continuity in the NRL.
If you look back at Cronk, Smith and Slater, there were no signs they were ever going to be anything special. Slater couldnt make his touch footy team for his jockey club.
Smith was working at a photocopy lab and Cronk was playing rugby. But the fact they went to the right system and became who they became is so much of a driver of the success Queensland now has..
Culture or cohesion? You be the judge.
-------------------------------------------
Breakthrough Junior Challenge - "What are we made of?" or a brief course of Quantum Field Theory - Duration: 2:59.
There are many theories trying to answer the biggest questions in science and one of the most successful of them in modern physics is
Quantum field Theory
and it's a bit strange
but not so much difficult to understand
But before we start talking about this theory
let's imagine the whole universe
Beside galaxies, stars and planets, there are also myriads of fields
They are spread everywhere
throughout the Universe
And well we cannot see them but we still can notice them by their impact on other objects
for example let's take the magnets
There is some mysterious force that attracts and repels them
And even though we cannot see it
even though it seems like there is absolutely nothing
we know that there is something real between those two magnets
that connects them
And we call it a field
Now back to Quantum Field Theory
It tells us that every fundamental
particle underlying our reality is actually a vibration of a certain field
And what on Earth does this mean?!
Well imagine electromagnetic field as a smooth stretched fabric
if you put some energy
and oscillate it
you can create a wave
And this wave according to wave-particle duality can be considered to be particle
Hmm
but wait
this idea doesn't seem to be new
Scientists had already known that light, which consists of photons is the wave of electromagnetic field.
We learn it in school
So what is so special about Quantum Field Theory?
The revolutionary idea was applying this same principle
to every single other particle in the universe
This means that on the smallest scale we are made of electrons and quarks
which in turn are also just localized
vibrations of electron and quark fields
Just imagine every electron in your body is connected to electrons in mine
Just like waves of the same Ocean
So there are many different fields:
electron field, electromagnetic field, quark fields and many others.
Quantum Field Theory also studies the way these fields interact with each other
This interactions are pretty interesting
They can explain how
particles are created and destroyed and how they get their properties.
For instance, the mass of particles.
This is just the result of their interaction with the Higgs field
And, obviously, the more they interact with it, the more mass they have.
In conclusion, I want to say that
math underlying Quantum Field Theory is
incredibly hard to understand.
But the basic idea is very simple:
fields are fundamental
and they create the Universe we live in
-------------------------------------------
Yachts, lingots d'or... Les députés LREM prêts à amender les "angles morts" du budget - Duration: 5:12.
For more infomation >> Yachts, lingots d'or... Les députés LREM prêts à amender les "angles morts" du budget - Duration: 5:12. -------------------------------------------
Police take baby off Okoberfest reveller so drunk he couldn't stand up or stop vomiting - Duration: 1:40.
Police take baby off Okoberfest reveller so drunk he couldn't stand up or stop vomiting
A baby was taken into care after it was found strapped to a man at Oktoberfest who was too drunk to stand and couldn't stop vomiting.
A shocked visitor to the popular German beer festival noticed a man slumped over close to the exit with a baby attached to his front, The Local reported .
As the tourist, a 28-year-old man from Texas, slowly fell to one side, the concerned man took the baby from him and police were called.
When officers arrived at Oktoberfest on Thursday they found the man was so drunk that he was unable to respond to their questions.
He also repeatedly vomited, leading police to call in an ambulance to take him to hospital.
Officers took the one-year-old baby to their station at Munich central station.
The child welfare office in the Bavarian capital then decided to take the baby into care.
Oktoberfest is the largest beer festival in the world, attracting a global audience for its mixture of strong beer, traditional Bavarian food and fair ground rides.
Organisers expect visitor numbers to hit 6 million again this year after a dip in 2016 due to bad weather and security fears.
-------------------------------------------
9/30/17 8:34 AM (NE Knudsen Ln, Dundee, OR 97115, USA) - Duration: 0:08.
For more infomation >> 9/30/17 8:34 AM (NE Knudsen Ln, Dundee, OR 97115, USA) - Duration: 0:08. -------------------------------------------
Should Jay Jacobs Stay or Go? - Duration: 1:54.
For more infomation >> Should Jay Jacobs Stay or Go? - Duration: 1:54. -------------------------------------------
Chemotherapy for people who don't know what it is or what it's used for - Duration: 2:57.
Hello Everyone My name is James Shiao and today we're talking
biology. The question for this video is: What is chemotherapy and how is it used?
To answer that question we need to look at what chemotherapy is used for: cancer. What is cancer?
Basically, cancer cells have genetic mutations that make them divide uncontrollably.
Normal cells have conditions that need to be fulfilled before
reproducing Like density dependence and anchorage dependence.
This just means if a cell is floating in the middle of nowhere or surrounded by
too many cells, it won't divide. But cancer cells don't care about these things. They just want to divide divide divide!
That ain't Good!
So how do you get rid of these selfish cells? One method is chemotherapy. It's a very general way to kill cancer cells using poisons.
Usually a person is Injected with poisons (yikes!) that will stop cells from reproducing.
There are various kinds of chemo. Which one to use depends on the type of cancer, the stage of cancer, and if the patient wants it.
The two main categories of chemo are cell-cycle specific and cell-cycle nonspecific.
Cycle nonspecific chemicals include alkylating Agents and anthracycline.
These treatments can attack the cancer cells at any point in the cell life and are usually given in a single dose for like 20 minutes.
Cycle specific chemicals Like antitumor antibiotics and topoisomerase inhibitors can only attack the cell during specific phases of the cell life.
Usually, they disrupt the reproduction stage, called mitosis, by interfering with the DNA replication.
Unfortunately, the common factor in all chemotherapy treatments is that they attack a lot of rapidly reproducing
cells that aren't cancer cells. These include hair follicle cells, intestinal cells, and immune cells.
As a result, patients can experience nausea, lose hair, get disease easily, and suffer other side effects that could potentially be very dangerous for the patient.
So, are there any alternatives to chemotherapy? Of course there are!
Biological therapy, or immunotherapy, is one alternative to kill cancer that strengthens the immune system using antibodies.
Gene therapy is another way that teachers mutated genes to kill cancer cells, and both treatments are becoming more popular.
There are quite a few options for treating cancer, and it can be rather difficult to decide which one to use.
When discussing with your doctor, make sure you ask about the risks and benefits of each treatment.
The patient is the ultimate decider in which treatment to take, so know what weapons you plan to use before entering the battle against cancer.
Thanks for watching! I hope you learned something about chemotherapy. Until next time!
-------------------------------------------
MY OFFICIAL DISCORD!!! (Put on CC or Check Description) - Duration: 0:32.
Discord is in the description!!!!
Sorry I didn't just record audio, It's late ok?
-------------------------------------------
Laser Online Review - Is Laser Trader Online Scam or Pyramid Scheme? - Duration: 2:21.
I've every manual here and you probably found this video because you're looking Laser Online Review
into this business opportunity as I have maybe you're looking to find a review or
maybe you're looking to see if it's the scam well firstly let me just say I am
NOT an affiliate for this opportunity so put your money away put your wallet away
I'm not a distributor so I won't be asking for any money I'm just giving you
an unbiased review so the question firstly is this product to scam so I've
looked into it and I would say no I don't believe it is a scam so then
secondly why then do most people not make any money with this type of
opportunity 97% of people actually fell and there is two reasons for that the
first is they don't know how to generate enough traffic I get emails every day
like other industry leaders from people and I ask them you know how many leads
did you generate this week and usually they'll say something like five or ten
people in the week now that's just not enough you are never going to make any
money like that I personally through my system show
people how to generate 50 to 100 leads a day so not a week every day on top of
that the second mistake that most people do they don't have their own front end
customized system what they do they use the company system they use the company
pages now that's what everybody else is doing so that's why people tend to see
their and then they don't do well they don't make any money from it so listen I
could stand here now and I could teach you how to do all these things here but
what I've done for you I've put together a bit of training I put together a
four-part training course it's going to show you all this sort of stuff show you
about trappy show you about putting your own funnels together and if you want Laser Online Review
access to that all you need to do is just click on this link below I'll leave
it in the description below you click on that link take you over to another page
where you can get completely free access to this four-part training course okay
so that's going to be a benefit to you click on the link below thank you for
listening to the video and I look forward to working with you or speaking
with you again soon all the best take Laser Online Review
-------------------------------------------
Zákazník taxi alebo ...? Betliar Slovensko / Customer taxi or ...? Betliar Slovakia - Duration: 1:37.
For more infomation >> Zákazník taxi alebo ...? Betliar Slovensko / Customer taxi or ...? Betliar Slovakia - Duration: 1:37. -------------------------------------------
Aladdin Beast Or Famine Top Cartoon For Kids & Children - Blue Rabbit - Duration: 20:16.
Have I ever mentioned my semi phenomenal nearly cosmic sense of direction we're lost
I scream you scream well
We're all a little edgy, but we've got to stick together that's right guys we're team
Hmm I'd say crazy I
Have a rule about doing anything that ends with the words if you dare
so we sweet-talk the lord of the castle art, canopy I
Feel like we're being watched you are
That's the castle Lord either that the guy who
You know turning back doesn't sound in bed right now
Jeannie it's not funny. I'm not laughing now the hardest-working man in one dimension the magistrate of magic
There's no helping me challenged
Lord ku taja
babe
Katana letting us cut through the castle huh whoa I can't leave yet. I've got some surefire material to try out on his hairy ship
Or. Maybe you miss his magical Fiasco's like say an avalanche to cite a recent example
ketchup
Welcome to the enchanted gin room
So then the big hairy monster to better tell him to hurry up
Sorry go quiet time is over stupidity
Chiku taught oh, thanks for letting me go let my Genie go by 3G
We would like to enter the castle
A bone in my body that where would I be just forget it?
Soccer balls your heavy shit. Let me go the shoe must come
I
Suppose this was the easy part
You're probably right
Big fools gotta size pool to the genie how can we get his attention?
faster and funnier than those everyday genies oh
Yeah, just call me last year's model
I thought you could fly you
Deja vu
You know aside from the menacing moment
For a long long time that would explain his pace for the abominable showman here
I
Guess he doesn't need me anymore
Who you need you Jeanne boy? It was a boring hike without you the worst part is he actually you can
What kind of creep would set a trap like this
Mosin wrath guilty now. Let's cut to the bone. You know how I've made it
Girl
Where are the tears little princess pitiful is very cute on you if you want to see your beloved Aladdin again?
Have the genie deliver to me a dagger rock by nightfall
Wants me
Mosin wrath wants you at dagger Rock by sunset or else Aladdin Isles got nothing to fear chance if that what wizard what don't worry
Jasmine I'll send my finest men to rescue the boy father. That's just what Mosin wrath expects
dearest
Aladdin's best hope I cannot just sit here lie down there I
Mean are you finding that a good nap?
Please the mind in a crisis carpet boom to their doom no guards a match for Mosin wrath
Jeannie
The guards are you gonna drag us along Jeannie? Let's get started I?
Feel so left out
What's going on here personnel reassignment paperwork just went through sir, I was wondering maybe
If you want resort listen you have to talk like us and so in an effort to look tough
man evolved, but hard shells were really impossible to
sew
in the 1970s
Thanks, Tina
You got something against the shortcut through the shifting sands Jalal and what is your Oh?
Me Jay. Oh, Ned
Soon your genie will be mine you'll never get Gd and who is gonna stop me Aladdin you either you get invited to
Some of us have free time to torment the prisoner but some of us should be on the lookout for my new genie
I don't think so your precious princess is no doubt weeping in some cloistered corner of the pets
How dare you give the Hulk command it is my command one of many I bellow so
Did they have the Jeanne Jeanne did you see the lamp
So is there any reason? Why we shouldn't obliterate a Latins little rescue boy, I remember
lost man, we have arrived the land of the blacks and
Here is he Humpty
Oh, I'll find you
And you're wishing for lights out man
Oopsie well, I majored in Mamluk battling school
Onward men
Hi, I think shortly before so what was the damage gruesome, I hope
So we crushed the street rat savings
Well I like a good laugh - I'm laughing already
Princess Jasmine look at these nails you need a trip
Learn to the princess were simple the lab was to be mined by nightfall
Princess Jasmine doesn't take orders from anybody that being the case. I'm thinking that I should keep my end if the buck told you I
Would search seas it's the royal pain
Are you clear on just how excruciating pain my powers can be
All right worried welcome my jeans only thing I'm a slave to is
These things go great with the tasteful string of pearls hmm, how does one trap a free Jean?
It overrated let's see you catch a semi phenomenon in a cosmic juni with that little knick-knack
point well-taken
if only I had a
monument to
it
Mosin rat is just full of magical power right carpet let
Next time know who you're up against
Wow what an awesome display of manliness resume she is my daughter
My hero
Anybody seen our funny little animal side and lock eyes
Directed danger
Not many though must be a no-frills excursion I think they're out there alone
Bar owners only six
Well all I can tell you is I have no idea
For SIA don't you have a nook telling me what it was you saw in the desert today
three horsemen were attacked by a gang of Marauders
You have witnessed
one of the great mysteries of the desert tell us norther cargo ever arrived at their destination
All that is known
Is that the riders are doomed?
They'll be back. I know it how do you know what happens every day?
What if it's a bi-monthly thing that evening?
No
Housing way over his head on this one. I wouldn't worry if we stick around long enough. We'll be back
Yeah, let's get down there and find out what's going on. Oh, I can't wait for this story
Who wants this one. I took the last one it's your turn
Whoa those guys are the best snake charmers, I've ever seen
Do I know you you mess with it took a ride on the cuckoo Garvin
The riders are starting their journey
We've got to stop them
We are the riders of ramond and the writers everyone fear no Marauders
They don't know they've done this all before but
What could happen
Sorry al looks like Iago's right oh, oh I wouldn't mind being wrong right up better keep your distance
Oh, we've seen this battle before and it gets ugly
Just hang back and monitor the body top site with the riders
They get him again, it's okay, we know there is a
Blue Genie
Nice rug. Yes, you control - Aladdin. You are cleared for your return to reality
Be gone
We've gotta stop him from hitting that chest
I just sighs I'm on top of the marauders situation
Nerine kept his last Union there for two years. I hope you cleaned it out
What say we flip for it? I win we continue on you win we retreat fair
Jeanne
It would be easier to save them if they weren't trying to slice dice enjoy off-limits
It was nothing we are the robber
As promised we have completed our mission
-------------------------------------------
Alain Brillet - Médaille d'or 2017 du CNRS - Duration: 15:18.
For more infomation >> Alain Brillet - Médaille d'or 2017 du CNRS - Duration: 15:18. -------------------------------------------
New Knives! or Melee weapons! Roblox Phantom Forces - Duration: 4:41.
Hey guys! Welcome to Phantom Forces again.
And today is another Phantom Forces update.
Or a new update came today
And that update is a lot of new knives and a new case system?
Because apparently there are some melee weapons that can't be bought by credits neither leveling up.
But they're obtain by opening a certain case
Seriously.... A lightsaber.... I don't even watch star wars
There are some free melee weapons but because of the "lower level: lower damage" rule. It can be annoying to use some weapons
Ignore the defeat sign, I just joined
A bat would be cool but wielding it in combat.... may look like a fool
I'm going to make a good setup
This menu glitch makes this game bad
So they have also added pages
Lets start the torture
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét