Eric Weinstein Interview (Full Episode) | The Tim Ferriss Show (Podcast)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 1 чер 2024
- My guest this episode is my friend, Eric Weinstein (@ericrweinstein), managing director of Thiel Capital, a Ph.D in mathematical physics from Harvard, and a research fellow at the Mathematical Institute of Oxford University. We recorded at my house after Eric emailed me this question: “Wanna try a podcast on… psychedelics, theories of everything, and the need to destroy education in order to save it?”
He’s brilliant and hilarious. If you enjoyed my podcasts with Derek Sivers or Sam Harris, you’ll love this one.
Connect with Eric Weinstein:
Follow Eric Weinstein on Twitter: / ericrweinstein
00:00 Start
5:23 An accidental economist
8:03 The mathematician at Thiel Capital
13:28 First-principle thinking and facing criticism
17:18 On playing music
21:58 On learning languages
29:58 Explaining the Overton Window
36:33 When an innovator leaves a successor
40:43 How autodidacts can pave a path for successors
44:28 How to see the world like a high-agency person
47:18 Most gifted books
49:58 Contemplating a move to the Bay Area?
51:33 Understanding Peter Thiel’s Zero to One
54:23 Seeing what others can’ see
59:18 How Thiel Capital approaches problems
1:01:58 Canonical design and commonplace solutions
1:06:38 And ideal high school class
1:14:43 Embodiments of success
1:18:33 A favorite purchase under $100
1:20:33 Morning rituals and work cycles
1:25:18 Eric’s billboard
1:26:43 Advice to Eric’s 30-year-old self
1:28:28 A request of the audience
1:31:33 Eric’s first experience with psychedelic drugs
Eric Weinstein on Challenging “Reality,” Working with Peter Thiel, and Destroying Education to Save It
Show Notes: fourhourworkweek.com/2016/01/1...
SUBSCRIBE: bit.ly/1dSzTkW
About Tim Ferriss:
Tim Ferriss is one of Fast Company’s “Most Innovative Business People” and an early-stage tech investor/advisor in Uber, Facebook, Twitter, Shopify, Duolingo, Alibaba, and 50+ other companies. He is also the author of five #1 New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestsellers: The 4-Hour Workweek, The 4-Hour Body, The 4-Hour Chef, Tools of Titans and Tribe of Mentors. The Observer and other media have named him “the Oprah of audio” due to the influence of his podcast, The Tim Ferriss Show, which has exceeded 200 million downloads and been selected for “Best of iTunes” three years running.
Connect with Tim Ferriss:
Visit the Tim Ferriss PODCAST: bit.ly/2rYjUBr
Visit the Tim Ferriss BLOG: bit.ly/17jDHw3
Like Tim Ferriss on FACEBOOK: on. 1avYUxq
Follow Tim Ferriss on TWITTER: bit.ly/17d94TE
Follow Tim Ferriss on INSTAGRAM: bit.ly/2IfH37J
Follow Tim Ferriss on INSTAGRAM: bit.ly/2IfH37J - Навчання та стиль
Interview starts at 4:28
ty
@Colin Mcfatridge I hacked your account and dante lukes, wow that is cray cray
Thanks Tim and Eric!
yes! Awesome show, Great Job!
MIND=BLOWN
Good enough for a poke
"the average person has never had an idea" - Eric Weinstein lol
Hahaha, too true. Unfortunately. We need a universal basic "forgiveness" standard of living, so people will venture to create/explore an idea.
@@ruburtoe1 what if your plan has the opposite effect?
@@1Plebeian I didn't propose a plan, just parameters/conditions for a higher likelihood of people taking the risk to come up with ideas, I think.
Great, great interview. I only heard Eric's name a few months ago from listening to Sam Harris' podcast. What a brilliant guy, also very deep, humble, relatable. The interviewer is great too.
Eric Weinstein is the epitome of ugly, arrogant, incredibly miserable old intellectual who thinks he is so arrogant that he doesn't even need to do any work at all on his hideous, fat carcass and bloated ugly face.
Yea I like Tom Fargiss a lot too
@@JD.......... I lyk Tam Fungus 2
Eric's brother Brett has a great podcast too. The Dark Horse, usually chaired with his wife Heather Heyin.
@@YappyRaccoon It's so refreshing to hear someone focus on physical appearance over content. Are you his agent, or his mother?
My problems with his are different. The only reason his movement exists is because people realize that they have a problem dealing with the controlling aspects of our culture: how $ is distributed, how politicians make decisions, how we feel that we have No Say Whatever over them afterwards & many other social issues.
He doesn't _resolve_ any of these: but people leave feeling better. Does that mean he teaches people to feel more comfortable with the injustice in the world?
Yes. That's _all_ that he does. He helps people separate out how they personally feel from the problem issues affecting others. It's like teaching people to be okay with watching a cop choke George Floyd's life out & personally move on.
Making it okay for the next cop to do the same again. It's like spitting on Martin Niemöller & all the people who were ever killed by those mindlessly supporting the Status Quo.
Hail Hydrah.
Such a privilege to hear this conversation, worthwhile and particularly insightful. Thank you very much.
36:30 for kung fu panda
Thank you! Such an exquisite "listen"!
Really inspiring and informative. some of the stuff here really speaks to me deeply.Thanks a bunch!
Excellent conversation.
This needs way more views.
At 1:29 that really touched a nerve. It's so true. Thank you Dr. W. for saying that.
Tim asks the best questions. These interviews are a such a joy to listen to.
"If you don't think outside the box you haven't seen the box for years ," this needs to be in a rap
this is my definition of FOMO: being 3 years late to a conversation like this...
Metoo but now we are here and better off for it
4 years, same, but also gleefully grateful to have found it now.
OG Eric was 🔥
I've listened to almost all Eric's content, but this one slipped by me. I will be watching 8 years late!
you two rock, thank you so much!
Eric is extremely interesting, I really look forward to his podcast if it eventuates, incredibly articulate and hilarious at times
Love it!! teaching disabled instead of learning disabled.
So much good info, thx guys
Please have Eric back on soon. This was amazing. Every bit of this episode was GOLD.
One of the most important ideas I know is: Human intelligence can be measured by the efficiency with which energy is transformed into sustainable human well-being. This leads directly towards a global app that measures and correlates well-being with the energy costs of creating it and leads to a response protocol that supports individuals in pivoting towards habits and locations and focuses that lead to sustainable well-being.
There's a comma and about three or four zeroes missing in the views count. Great guest, mind-blowing interview.
Right? Hard to believe this video/podcast has been up for almost a year now and only has...4k-ish views? This is one of UA-cam's hidden gems.
Great stuff. Tim publishes the interviews on his site and itunes some time before putting it on youtube so hopefully lot's of people have listened to it there. Check Rubin report and Sam Harris waking up pod for more talks with Eric.
I recently discovered Eric Weinstein. What an incredibly brilliant guy!
Yeah, I came here from the Rubin Report done with Eric on Jan 6th 2017 . . . yet 2 years on and it still hasn't picked up the views - at least Eric himself has had the prominence which is, at the end of the day, the more important thing.
Agreed. Just discovered Eric recently and have been scouring. After listening to Eric and his brother on Rubin earlier today, I just got hooked. I need more.
Just exquisite!!
In several years of typing “Eric Weinstein” into the UA-cam search bar, this video has NEVER SHOWN UP. NEVER.
You don't need formal education to be an expert in a field.
You just need to prove you what you think you know is an accurate representation of objective reality.
So good I wish it'd be longer. Thanks to Tim for not staying too much on politics which often the case with d.rubin and b.shapiro
Im pickin up what you are puttin down. And I feel Eric's true talent is his ability to expand conversation in a way that that pulls a variety of topics into a space that lends a perspective. The notion that all things are considered and have a connection. This conceptual ability amazes me.
1:17:00 sometimes good science is more art than science.
So Damn Good!
I’d like to hear more hard content from Eric Weinstein in this format, eg explain his solutions for social adjustment more fully for a lay audience. What are his key ideas? Most EW interviews have too much ‘oh gee you’re a nice guy and you play music’
GENUIS!!!
I love music theory.
Taco Bell Canon in D... somebody has GOT to do something with that!!! HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Okay, but first one must tackle Kung Fu Panda.
Hearing Eric Weinstein talk about Kung Fu Panda... is fucking priceless :)
it made me rewatch the movie
1:23:00
Where is round 2?!
Taco Bell's Canon
It’s right up there with Half an Enchilada. Check out John Prine’s “That’s the Way the World Goes Round.” Absolutely hilarious confusion around music and mexican food.
Do ponchos count as a better umbrella?
Eric's laugh at 18:54
And at 1:33:28
Eric Weinstein. Like.
04:28
I don't understand the transfer payment admonishment. If a material wealth transfer did occur I doubt that it was an intended consequence.
Einstein left an Einstein. Follow his brain pattern in his thoughts given that u are smart enough to understand it deeply
23:26
20:28 If you raise the number two for twice the frequency, which gives us octave to the nineteenth power; and then take the twelveth root thereof, it's almost equal to three, and that weird numerical accident is what makes it possible to both have extremely beautiful intervals, but also have them so regular that you can make cords.
I'm sorry, what?
In case anyone really wanted an explanation:
1) A musical note is propagated as a wave. The difference between noise (say, crunching a piece of paper) and a musical note is that the wave of the musical note is repeatable (think "sine wave") whereas the wave of just noise isn't (you wouldn't find any repeatable patterns in just noise). You can take this repeatable wave of a musical note and measure its frequency (in hertz, hz). This frequency will determine how high or low the note sounds. The higher the frequency, the higher the note sounds.
2) What happens when you sing two different notes simultaneously? This is where aesthetics come in. If I'm singing a note at 100hz and you play something at, say 135hz, it just won't sound pleasant to your ear. Pythagoras is one of the first we know of who tried to make mathematical sense out of what "sounds good" and what doesn't. Basically, he concluded that for two notes played together to sound good, the ratio between the two notes had to be simple. So, if I'm singing a note at 100hz and you're singing a note at 150hz, we get a ratio of 3/2, simple ratio and it sounds good. But if I'm singing a note at 100hz and you're singing a note at 135hz, that's a complicated ratio (27/20, can't reduce it any further) and that will sound awful. He derived a system where he built musical notes using only the two simplest ratios (other than 1/1), i.e. 2/1 and 3/2 (actually 3/1 but you get 3/2 through what is called "octave reduction" but that is another long discussion).
3) 2/1 ratio. Something odd happens when you double the frequency of a note. If I'm singing a note at 100hz, and you sing a note at 200hz, for some reason we recognize these notes as being essentially "the same". You probably already know this, at least as a matter of experience. Imagine a mother and a father singing "Three blind mice" to their kid. Usually the woman will be singing at double the frequency than the man, and yet we perceive it as if they're singing the same thing. This doubling of frequency is what is called an octave (there are reasons why it is called that but that would be a whole other topic). This is true for any frequency multiplied or divided by 2. The notes at 50hz, 100Hz, 200Hz, 400Hz, 800Hz, 1,600Hz will all sound like they are essentially "the same". They have the same musical "quality". The music you could make by only using this 2/1 ratio would be incredibly boring as it would all sound essentially like the same note.
4) 3/2 ratio. Here things get more interesting. Using that ratio you get a note that sounds intrinsically different (as opposed to what I described above with the octave). Pythagoras took this ratio and created "stacks". If the starting note is 100hz. You apply the 3/2 ratio and get a note at 150hz (in musical terms, this note is called a "fifth" or a "perfect fifth"). Then you take that note at 150hz and apply the 3/2 ratio again and get 225hz. And repeat. Remember that if you multiply or divide these notes by 2, the resulting note will be "the same". So that note at 150Hz is the same as a note a 75Hz or 300Hz.
5) The Pythagorean system and our own current system is a 12-note system. That means that there should be 12 notes in each octave. So, to take the example of 100hz I've been using, that means there should be 12 notes to get from 100hz to 200hz. Then 12 notes to get from 200hz to 400hz. 12 notes to get from 400hz to 800hz, etc. I don't think anyone really knows why 12. It's basically a mystery, especially since this 12-note system appears to some degree in many different cultures and epochs. How do you find the frequencies of those 12 notes? Well, you use those "stacks of fifths" using the 3/2 ratio. You do that 12 times and you have all 12 notes.
6) Here's the glitch. For the system to be perfect, if you stacked up 12 fifths, then you should end up with a frequency that matches up with a stack of octaves. Since that 12th note is supposed to be "the same" as the 1st, it should line up with the frequencies of the octaves of that 1st note. But they don't. The point where they should match up is with 12 fifths and 7 octaves. That's where Eric's point comes in. Unfortunately I don't know how to add mathematical notation to a UA-cam comment so I'll do what I can. In the perfect systems 12 fifths divided by 7 octaves would be equal to 1. So you do the division of 12 fifths by 7 octaves and see what happens. 3/2 to the power of 12 divided by 2/1 to the power of 7 should be equal to 1. Doing the math, you get 3 to the power of 19 divided by 2 to the power of 12 which gives you approximately 1.0136. So it's note quite there but it's almost equal to 1. That slight difference of 0.0136 is what is called the "Pythagorean comma". That's what Eric is talking about. The way he worded is slightly different but it's the same thing, just switching the math around a bit.
7) What does this mean and what is "equal temperament" (which for some reason Eric called "even temperament")? Well, this slight difference between stacks of octaves and stacks of fifths created all sorts of problems for musical composition and tuning. It gave you the most beautiful notes and harmonies possible but it had some pretty severe restrictions. I'd have to go much deeper into music theory to explain what those restrictions are so maybe you can just take my word for it ^^. What equal temperament did was basically that someone said "wait. that difference of 0.0136 is really small. What if I cheated a bit and just said for argument's sake that the ratio actually was 1 and not 1.0136?" So he did that and tuned the other notes no longer by stacking fifths and octaves but instead by just assuming the end ratio was 1 and dividing the whole thing into 12 evenly distributed notes (12th root of 2). The end result is that the frequencies of the notes were slightly different. It was ever so slightly off what the mathematics said the notes should be. But it was "close enough". And having these imperfect but evenly distributed notes solved a lot of problems and opened up a lot of musical possibilities (among others making more and more complex chords- a chord being 3 or more different notes played simultaneously. In the Pythagorean system, a lot of these chords just sounded ugly but in equal temperament they sound fine). Even today this is a hotly debated topic among certain musicians. There are people who disagree that the new notes are "close enough" to the perfect ratios they should have (including myself). And they have a point I think. Something has been lost in our move to equal temperament. Everyone in the West is basically used to it now and we just accept that this is how music is supposed to sound. But the truth is that those slight imperfections from the perfect ratios make a huge difference to anyone who cares enough to actually listen. Listening to those pure Pythagorean ratios for the first time is like discovering sunlight after a lifetime spent indoors with a neon light.
You just blew my mind.
Wha... I have so many questions. How on earth Pythagoras measured any of it? When did the "cheating" point come to pass? Do we know what music was like before that? Why didn't it spread in the east? How many know/knew this or consiously put it to use? Does introducing multiple instruments change anything?
I should take a step back and thank you from the bottom of my heart for taking the time to write all of that down. I can only say that I've read it all very intently.
@@LukeGeoDude Oh cool. Thanks for sticking with me through that long post. Tbh I wasn't sure you were actually interested in the answer or just pointing out how strange Eric's sentence sounded, so I wrote that post almost as an exercice for myself just to see if I could explain it. ^^ But I'm glad you read it!
For your other questions:
- As far as my understanding goes, Pythagoras (if he existed at all...) wasn't dealing with frequencies per se. It would be a long time before we invented the tools to measure frequencies. Instead, a lot of his ideas are presented as being based on "string lengths". Think of a guitar string for example. It's fixed to the rest of the guitar at the two ends. But when the guitarist presses down on the fretboard with one of his fingers, essentially what he's doing is shortening the string. His finger becomes one of the two ends of the string. So what Pythagoras did was basically that. He took one string and realized that if he pressed down on that string right in the middle of it, then what he got was the octave. And he then realized that if you pressed down at the 1/3rd mark of the total length of the string, what you got was a perfect fifth. Of course, they weren't called octaves and perfect fifths just yet, but you get the idea. So when he came up with these ratios, he was thinking only in terms of string length and it's only later that we begun to understand frequency and how that related to Pythagoras's work.
To understand why those string lengths sounded good to him, we have to introduce the concept of the "harmonic series". Basically put, when you pluck a string, there's actually not just one frequency being played, but there are several ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_(music) ). What we hear the most is the fundamental frequency, but as it turns out, there are a whole bunch of other frequencies packed in there. And the two other frequencies that happen to be the most easy to recognize in there are the octave (2/1) and the fifth (3/2). One way to ascertain this is through the phenomenon of "sympathetic resonance". We know that if you play a certain frequency, other things that are set at that same frequency will resonate along with it. If you have two strings side by side set at the same frequency and you play one of them, the other will also start to vibrate even if you haven't touched it. The interesting thing is that if you have two strings side by side, and one string is exactly half the length of the other (or 1/3 for the fifths), then when you pluck the first string, the other will also resonate. That's because the frequency of the second string is actually already being played in the first string. It's barely audible but it's there alright.
A lot of older music, and in fact most music in the world even today, is what we could call "dronal music". A drone is a sustained note that is played throughout an entire piece. It can be either just part of the instrument (for instance, the bagpipes or the hurdy-gurdy. If you listen to this: ua-cam.com/video/d4wgAa1r0MU/v-deo.html you'll notice that there's always this one tone in the background that never changes. That's a drone) or it can just be implied (for instance: ua-cam.com/video/vI4GXh6SNXI/v-deo.html There's no one instrument always playing that drone note, but it's implied and the entire piece is structured around it). In that kind of music, it's very important that every note played or sung fits in nicely with the harmonic series of the drone. Because that note is always there, either being played explicitly or just sort of implied. So, in that kind of music, using equal temperament is not a plus because if you did, it would create tension between the harmonic series of the drone and the other notes being played.
(As a side note, we've now come so far in our understanding of the harmonic series and the various mathematical interactions between frequencies that we've learned to create "combination tones", i.e. tones that aren't actually being played by anyone but are created by the interaction of several other frequencies that are being played. With real instruments, it's hard to do and the combination tones are barely audible, but using electronics you can get striking results. Listen to this: ua-cam.com/video/k7p5tDekMjY/v-deo.html So, if you pay attention what you should hear is one loud melody, sort of on the low-pitch side of things, and in the background you hear a bunch of very high pitched notes. Well, the only notes actually being played are the very high pitched ones in the background. That loud melody you're hearing isn't being played by anyone. It's just the result of all the other high pitch notes being played together. Weird right? It gets worse… There are combination tones that are created in the "physical world". But there are combination tones that don't exist anywhere else than in your mind… Or in other words, in some cases you could put measurement devices to pick up all the frequencies being played in a room, and those combination tones wouldn't show up. They're literally created by your ear and your brain… Anyways, end of side note. ^^)
So a lot of music of the past and of today is mainly concerned about how the music sounds in relationship to this one fundamental note. Western music gradually took another route. We got more and more interested in what happened when you stacked several voices together. If you look at old polyphonic chants (think Gregorian choirs for example), you can have 3 or 4 different voices at the same time but they tend to all move more or less together, kind of like big chunks. During the end of the Middle-Ages (debatable but I'd say starting in the 14th century), you start to see some interest in having each of these voices be beautiful "per se". What I mean by that is that before the focus was that the collective result of every voice sung together had to sound nice but if you took just one voice individually, it didn't matter all that much whether it sounded nice. Now that starts to change and composers begin to show interest in having each individual voice be able to stand on its own merit, and not just as part of the whole. This is essentially what is now known as "counterpoint". J.S. Bach is probably the best we've ever had at this. If you listen to any of his compositions, you'll see that it's an interweaving of a bunch of different melodies, all of which would be beautiful on their own merit. That's where the intonation problems come up. If you're using the old Pythagorean system, that's nice if you're concerned only about the relationship of the notes to one fundamental note (as in dronal music), but once you start looking at 3 or 4 different melodies played at the same time, the ratios get messy really quick and there are certain things you just can't do. Equal temperament solved that. I'm simplifying (there were a bunch of other intonation systems that were tried between Pythagorean and equal temperament) but that's the gist of it. You'll see that in some cases the difference with equal temperament is rather small, and in others it's very noticeable. Usually pure intonation sounds "clearer" and equal temperament sounds more "muddy". ua-cam.com/video/QzVN1FEhYpU/v-deo.html
- Why didn't it spread outside of the West? Well, the short answer is that it did (the Chinese also came up with the same mathematical reasoning, apparently independently, without European influence), and it certainly is today with the dominance of pop music everywhere. Here I think it's important to see music as part of culture as a whole and what the role of music is. In the West we put a lot of emphasis on innovation and individuality. This isn't necessarily the case in other cultures. Or you could think of it this way, with something perhaps closer to home. If you've ever been to a church service, you've heard people singing old hymns that are sometimes centuries old. The interest there is not in innovation, it's in the music as a form of social glue. Before it becomes something to sell and to be consumed, music is first and foremost a kind of social glue. And we tend to prefer our social glue to be reliable, steady, not changing every 5 minutes with the wild ideas of some new composer. So you could see it that way. Say a Tuareg hear's Western classical music, he might enjoy it and find it beautiful, but he's not going to uproot his own musical tradition just because of that. It's not "his" music, the music his tribe wants to sing and dance to.
thanks mister
@@bofbob1 You said there are "12 notes in each octave" which are determined "using the 3/2 ratio", but I don't see how that works based on what you've said. If the octave is 100 hz to 200 hz, the 2nd note would be 150 hz, the 3rd would be 225 hz - but wait, we're already over 200 hz. Can you explain? What would the 12 notes be in that octave?
There's a mistake in your math. You said "3 to the power of 19 divided by 2 to the power of 12" but you need to swap the 19 and 12. It should be 3^12 / 2^19. And yes, this can be modified into what Eric said: 3^12 / 2^19 = 1 --> 3^12 = 2^19 --> 3 = 2^(19/12). Btw, basic symbols would be helpful. Using words, the order of operations is ambiguous. The other expression you mentioned could be written as (3/2)^12 / 2^7.
While the term "equal temperament" is apparently more common, "even temperament" also appears to be a legitimate alternative. Some sources even use both.
Bigoteer is a cute neologism, but the concept of having handy terms in your arsenal for defense against the overly-zealous is hardly new ('zealot' itself perhaps qualifying, as does 'grammar Nazi'). I used to frequent a literary forum overrun by passive-aggressive ladies who assiduously monitored all breaches (in their view) of 'civility.' At the least (often imaginary) provocation they'd strike back with the verbal equivalent of atomic bombs. I took to calling them the 'civility police' and wasn't above pointing out their hypocrisy, since they were so obviously lying in wait for potential victims who could be treated anything but civilly.
More generally, it's sometimes effective simply to ask at-others'-expense virtue signallers, heretic hunters and their presumptuous ilk, 'Who appointed you the local public scold?'
God, I love the term, "heretic hunter." I am absolutely stealing this.
@@johnvonleibnizNo need to steal it. I make you a gift of it, royalty-free.
What did Eric mean by a senior in college was too late? For what?
Don't worry about it too much. He said "probably."
41:09, 50:26
34:30
It is called an umbrella because it's about umbrias - that is, they are shade sticks not shower sticks. problem solved.
Bigoteer. Great neologism! I'll adopt it.
Eric Weinstein, casually dropping the red pill at 31:48.
"The average person has never had an idea" - Eric Weinstein.
Butthe average person is really good at parroting other people's ideas. "Red pill"......yawn.
Beware too successful a free thinking innovation or you’ll end up like Julian Assange ... we need to reform other institutions than education.
I've noticed that Weinstein likes relish.
Pretend contrarians are the worst
I feel a lot better now that I know Eric Weinstein can't sing an octave.
Bigoteer never caught on...oh well.
Is he saying he's into microdosing?
Australiantatious 😂😂😂😂 “The psychedelic elite”
How the fuck can someone do bass fingering with their pinky fingers? That's painful just to imagine, geez
How does an Einstein leave another, that problem was solved long ago.
How so?
Yea, how so?
#biggoteering
Are your dentures loose?
why is Eric Weinstein's spirit animal a mirror orchid?
Bigoteer was an OK suggestion but doesn't evolve then condemn it being specifically lazy and willfully dishonest to make mob-pleasing grotesque or low fidelity caricatures of the real people.
I bet a classically trained linguist could quickly figure out some candidates.
bigoteering, learned a new word today.
Introduced by idiotic Thumpmuzik...
...but find out about "bigoteers" !
...and Expertise v. Inspiration.
Intro:
Blah blah blah...the usual bullshit about how this investment is so unique and revolutionary...all i hear is BERNIE MADOFF
No insights or new ideas, just a lame and boring interview.
Then recommend some interviews which have new ideas
Just a lame and boring comment.
Thank you