Youtube daily report Jul 24 2018

[♪ INTRO ]

When you get "The Talk" as a kid and learn about the birds and the bees, the information

you get doesn't have a timestamp.

Unlike lots of other animals, there's no such thing as the "mating season" for

humans: People can get together and make babies at any time of year.

And cleary, they do.

From what we can tell, the reason humans don't have a mating season has to do with why other animals do.

And a lot of it might involve how we raise our young.

Plenty of animals — like horses, some types of birds, goats, sheep, and other critters

— have mating seasons.

Appropriately, they're called seasonal breeders.

The members of those species only go through certain hormonal cycles during a portion of the year.

They lead to females releasing eggs, often physical changes in males, and behavioral

changes that promote sexual activity.

This strategy evolved to make sure that, when offspring are born, they arrive during a time

of year when the environment is friendlier and there's food available.

For example, many birds in the Arctic Circle start laying their eggs in May, so that the

chicks are born in June and July, when prey is abundant.

The start and end of these seasons are triggered by changes in the environment.

For example, animals' biological clocks might note the days getting longer, which

is a sign of the arrival of spring.

And that might spur the physiological changes necessary for procreation.

The human reproductive cycle, on the other hand, isn't tied to a yearly clock.

Like many other primates, we're called continuous breeders, and we're capable of producing

offspring during any season.

Admittedly, people aren't equally fertile every day.

Roughly every month, there's a window where an egg is optimally positioned to be fertilized.

But that still happens on predictable, 28-day intervals throughout the whole year.

Regardless, the evolutionary reasons for this aren't quite clear.

It may just be that the environmental risks to our offspring aren't as significant.

Humans and other primates devote a lot of energy to caring for new babies, so those

babies aren't left to find their own food, or out vulnerable to the elements.

But it's hard to know for sure if this is the right explanation.

Of course, even without a mating season, there are still times during the year when people

are more likely to have kids.

Birth rates in the United States, at least, are highest in the summer and fall, suggesting

that people are having more sex and conceiving more babies during the winter.

That might be because, at least in many regions, the cold drives people indoors where there's

not as much to do.

It could also be because of sperm viability.

A 2013 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that, in more than 6000

samples, average sperm quality was highest during the winter, when the cells are less

likely to be damaged by heat.

But babies are still conceived during warmer months — and in warmer climates in general.

Still, if you live in the United States and your birthday is in August, you are definitely not alone.

It's just not because of a mating season.

Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow which is a Complexly production!

Even if humans don't have a mating season, there's still a lot to learn about sex in general.

And that's where one of our sister channels, Sexplanations, comes in!

You can check it out at youtube.com/sexplanations.

[♪ OUTRO ]

For more infomation >> Why Don't Humans Have a Mating Season? - Duration: 3:07.

-------------------------------------------

Coisas incríveis sobre Malta que você Não Sabia | Enjoy Eurotrip 2018 | Ep#8 - Duration: 10:01.

For more infomation >> Coisas incríveis sobre Malta que você Não Sabia | Enjoy Eurotrip 2018 | Ep#8 - Duration: 10:01.

-------------------------------------------

(Gary)國民外交 小屁孩與香港人的國民外交 (CC字幕 還沒用完) - Duration: 10:20.

For more infomation >> (Gary)國民外交 小屁孩與香港人的國民外交 (CC字幕 還沒用完) - Duration: 10:20.

-------------------------------------------

The Letter D Song | Alphabet Jam | Pevan & Sarah | Learn the alphabet - Duration: 1:43.

♫ It's Pevan & Sarah ♫

♫ Alphabet Jam by Pevan & Sarah ♫

Can you say the letter D?

D!

Can you say the letter D?

D!

Can you say the letter D?

D!

You rock!

There's 26 letters that you need to know,

You can learn them, so let me show you

How to do it, there's really nothing to it,

Pevan & Sarah gonna get straight to it!

d...d....drums

d...d...doughnut.

d...d...dice.

d...d...duck.

Your turn!

You rock!

Can you say the letter D?

D!

Can you say the letter D?

D!

Can you say the letter D?

D!

You rock!

D makes a 'd' sound, d...d...d.

D makes a 'd' sound, d...d...d.

D makes a 'd' sound, d...d...d.

D makes a 'd' sound, d...d...d.

♫ Alphabet Jam by Pevan & Sarah ♫

For more infomation >> The Letter D Song | Alphabet Jam | Pevan & Sarah | Learn the alphabet - Duration: 1:43.

-------------------------------------------

Underwater Unboxing - Wowzer Surprise Magical Pet | Official Orbeez

For more infomation >> Underwater Unboxing - Wowzer Surprise Magical Pet | Official Orbeez

-------------------------------------------

When Fish Wore Armor - Duration: 10:19.

420 million years ago, life was definitely better down where it was wetter...under the

sea.

Dry land was still new and relatively empty.

But in the seas, life had reached a fever pitch of diversity, especially among fish.

The world's oceans teemed with sharks, primitive ray-finned fishes, hagfish, and even our very

early ancestors, the lobe-finned fish.

With such an abundance of life unfolding from 420 million to 360 million years ago, it's

no wonder that the Devonian Period is often called the Age of Fish.

But the fish that the Devonian is perhaps best known for were a little different than

the ones you and I know today.

Back then, some fish were more… medieval.

They wore armor, sometimes made of big plates, and sometimes made of interlocking scales.

And the evolution of armor may seem like an obvious adaptation for protection, especially

in the Devonian's crowded seas.

But that armor may actually have served a totally different purpose, one that many animals

still use today -- including you and me.

The earliest armored fish we have fossils of is called Sacabambaspis, a member of the

subclass known as Arandaspida.

This fish lived in the coastal waters of what's now Bolivia, during the Ordovician Period,

some 470 million years ago.

And really, it looked more like a watermelon with a tail than a fish.

It had no jaws, and no dorsal or side fins.

It was only marginally more fish-like than its earlier relatives, hagfish and conodonts,

with which it shared a common ancestor.

But what it lacked in fishiness in the front of its body it made up for with an extravagant

tail, complete with a shark-like fin and a long, scaled rod extending from the tip.

And the most distinctive feature of this fish was, of course, its armor -- a new adaptation

probably made of a primitive bone-like tissue called aspidin, as well as dentine and enameloid,

materials that are very similar to the ones that make up your teeth.

This armor covered the head in big plates, with smaller, joined chevrons running along

the rest of the body.

So Sacabambaspis was the first fish that we know of to acquire this kind of covering, but

it would soon have many imitators.

The period that came next, the Silurian, saw the evolution of armor in many groups of fish,

all around the same time.

One such group was the Heterostracans, whose name means "different scales."

They, too, looked like small, armored ovals with thick, fleshy tails.

Tolypelepis, for example, swam around Latvia 420 million years ago.

It was only about 8 centimeters long, but its armor was especially beautiful, made of

intricate, ridged, interlocking scales.

Other Heterostracans had fused plates on their heads, with diamond-shaped or elongated scales

covering their tails.

But head plates took on new forms in another group of jawless fish: the Osteostracans,

whose name means "bony shields."

The armor on these fish was typically just a large, one-piece shield that covered the

head, made of dentine and bone, with smaller linear scales along the body.

These head shields were wider than the rest of the body, and they sometimes tended toward

extravagance, as in the case of Boreaspis, a fish that sported a large spike sprouting

from its face.

Osteostracans also boasted a brand-new feature: fins -- namely, dorsal fins and small, paddle-like

side-fins that gave them greater mobility in the water.

And this is where armored fish start to take an especially interesting turn.

Because, osteostracans are among the few jawless fish to have a bony internal skeleton, or

endoskeleton.

They didn't have much of one -- their backbones, like those of heterostracans and earlier fish,

was made of cartilage.

But their fins and parts of their skulls were some of the first to be made of bone.

And this brings us to probably the best-known armored fish, the Placoderms.

Placoderm means "plate skin," and plated they indeed were, with big chunks of bone,

dentine and enameloid armor on their head and bodies.

In some placoderms, the covering got up to 5 centimeters thick.

But placoderms were also unique among armored fish in having a complete, mineralized internal

skeleton – meaning they had both an endoskeleton, like you do, as well as an exoskeleton.

And their endoskeleton and exoskeleton were completely separate!

For example, the skull of a placoderm had an internal braincase made of endoskeletal

bone.

Then, as an additional layer outside of that, unconnected, was a thick layer of exoskeletal

bone.

And one more big thing that set Placoderms apart from earlier fish was that they were

the first fish to have jaws, giving them the ability to bite, chew, and grind rather than

just scrape or filter feed.

Now, one of the most widespread placoderms was Bothriolepis, which was able to live in

oceanic environments, estuaries, and freshwater settings.

And while this fish had jaws, it didn't have true teeth.

Instead, it had bony plates that it used to grind up its food, like decomposing plant

and animal matter.

Much bigger than Bothriolepis -- and more carnivorous -- was Dunkleosteus, a giant,

predator that could reach up to 9 meters in length, with massive, shearing jaws.

It didn't have teeth, either, but the sharpened sections of bone it used instead could have

produced up to 7400 newtons of force, making it one of the strongest bites of any fish,

living or extinct, and certainly the strongest bite in the world at the time.

So armored fish came in a variety of shapes and sizes during the Silurian and Devonian,

from tiny Heterostracans to massive Placoderms.

But why did these fish evolve armor in the first place?

I mean, it's possible that armor evolved as armor: to protect them from other

fish and predators.

And indeed, bite marks on armored bone, and remnants of armored fish found in the feces

of other animals, are common in the fossil record.

There are even fossils of Dunkleosteus that bear the bite marks of other Dunkleosteus.

So, if armor evolved just for protection, it certainly wasn't 100% effective.

But that might not have been its only purpose.

Instead, the evolution of bony armor might have had a whole lot to do with storing vital

minerals.

See, bone and other bony tissues contain a lot of Calcium and Phosphorous.

You probably know that these minerals help keep bones strong, but they're also necessary

for a lot of chemical processes in your body, like muscle movement.

That's right, calcium's not just for bones!

You need a certain amount of calcium for your muscles to work, because it makes your muscle

fibers contract.

And Phosphorous is an important part of the little molecule your body uses to store and

transfer energy: Adenosine Triphosphate, or ATP.

So, without phosphorus and calcium, the internal workings of your body - or that of an armored

fish - basically just wouldn't run.

That's why modern animals -- including you -- use bone as a repository for calcium and

phosphorous.

We have special cells that quickly break down bone, sending calcium and phosphorous into

the bloodstream, in a process called bone reabsorption.

When bone tissue is broken down like this, it changes the microscopic structure of the

bone.

And scientists have seen signs of those changes in the armor of heterostracans, osteostracans

and placoderms.

So, it seems that these armored fish did use their bony armor for mineral storage.

And this ability may have been one of the key reasons that these fish were so successful,

allowing them to take over all kinds of watery habitats.

Both calcium and phosphorus are present in water, but they occur in much lower concentrations

in fresh water than they do in the ocean.

And heterostracans, osteostracans and placoderms have been found in both salty AND fresh water

environments.

So then having big bony shields may have acted like a camel's hump for calcium, an

important resource that kept their muscles working at top speed while they explored rivers

and lakes.

And of course, it's also possible armor evolved for both reasons -- as a convenient

storage for muscle-moving minerals, and a nice piece of protection to help keep you

from getting chomped on.

So you can credit these ancient fish for acquiring the evolutionary breakthrough that was the

mineralized suit of armor.

But, do we have them to thank for our bony skeletons?

Probably not.

Or at least not directly.

We might be able to trace them back to a common ancestor, though.

The problem is that, like so many things in paleontology, the relationship of armored

fish to other living things is … vague.

Most of today's bony fish are ray-finned fishes.

And land-dwelling vertebrates are descended from lobe-finned fishes.

But it's not clear how armored fish, especially placoderms, were related to either of these

groups.

Some scientists think that, while both ray-finned and lobe-finned fish shared common ancestors

with armored fish, they aren't their direct descendants.

Others think that most placoderms specifically share common ancestors with ray-finned and

lobe-finned fishes, but there are some placoderms

that are more closely related to lobe-finned fishes

than to other armored fish.

It's confusing, I am aware, but phylogenetics is hard.

And regardless of where they came from, the thick body armor of these fish didn't make

it through to the other side of the Devonian.

The late Devonian is characterized by one of Earth's "big 5" mass extinctions,

with a loss of 50 to 60% of marine genera, including all of the armored fish.

It's not really clear what caused the Devonian extinctions, which occurred in two main bursts.

The end of the Devonian shows signs of a rapid swing from greenhouse to a sudden glaciation

and then back again, a see-sawing of climate that could be responsible for many of the

extinctions.

But scientists aren't yet sure why this climate change occurred -- or whether the

cause was actually something else.

Whatever the cause, armor was no protection against the effects of it, and so the armored

fish disappeared.

In their wake, bony fish and cartilaginous fish like sharks and rays took over the oceans.

And the medieval age of fish came to a close.

Thanks for joining me today, and thanks to all of our patrons who help make these videos

possible.

And we want to thank our first two eontologists, Duncan Miller and David Rasmussen.

Thank you so much for your support!

If you'd like to join them, head on over to patreon.com/eons and pledge for some neat

and nerdy rewards.

And, if you're interested, like I am, in learning more about how our planet works,

then go on over to one of our newest sister channels, Hot Mess, which explores climate

science, the effects of climate change, and how we can create a better future for our

planet and ourselves.

Now, what do you want to know about the history of life on Earth?

Let me know in the comments!

And if you haven't already, be sure to go to youtube.com/eons and subscribe!

For more infomation >> When Fish Wore Armor - Duration: 10:19.

-------------------------------------------

Train Simulator 18 Stream - Duration: 2:05:02.

For more infomation >> Train Simulator 18 Stream - Duration: 2:05:02.

-------------------------------------------

Alfa Romeo MiTo 0.9 TWINAIR DISTINCTIVE - QV LINE - Duration: 1:12.

For more infomation >> Alfa Romeo MiTo 0.9 TWINAIR DISTINCTIVE - QV LINE - Duration: 1:12.

-------------------------------------------

Renault Grand Modus 1.6-16V EXCEPTION AUTOMAAT - Duration: 1:07.

For more infomation >> Renault Grand Modus 1.6-16V EXCEPTION AUTOMAAT - Duration: 1:07.

-------------------------------------------

Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.0 JTD Sport - Duration: 0:54.

For more infomation >> Alfa Romeo 159 Sportwagon 2.0 JTD Sport - Duration: 0:54.

-------------------------------------------

Why Don't Humans Have a Mating Season? - Duration: 3:07.

[♪ INTRO ]

When you get "The Talk" as a kid and learn about the birds and the bees, the information

you get doesn't have a timestamp.

Unlike lots of other animals, there's no such thing as the "mating season" for

humans: People can get together and make babies at any time of year.

And cleary, they do.

From what we can tell, the reason humans don't have a mating season has to do with why other animals do.

And a lot of it might involve how we raise our young.

Plenty of animals — like horses, some types of birds, goats, sheep, and other critters

— have mating seasons.

Appropriately, they're called seasonal breeders.

The members of those species only go through certain hormonal cycles during a portion of the year.

They lead to females releasing eggs, often physical changes in males, and behavioral

changes that promote sexual activity.

This strategy evolved to make sure that, when offspring are born, they arrive during a time

of year when the environment is friendlier and there's food available.

For example, many birds in the Arctic Circle start laying their eggs in May, so that the

chicks are born in June and July, when prey is abundant.

The start and end of these seasons are triggered by changes in the environment.

For example, animals' biological clocks might note the days getting longer, which

is a sign of the arrival of spring.

And that might spur the physiological changes necessary for procreation.

The human reproductive cycle, on the other hand, isn't tied to a yearly clock.

Like many other primates, we're called continuous breeders, and we're capable of producing

offspring during any season.

Admittedly, people aren't equally fertile every day.

Roughly every month, there's a window where an egg is optimally positioned to be fertilized.

But that still happens on predictable, 28-day intervals throughout the whole year.

Regardless, the evolutionary reasons for this aren't quite clear.

It may just be that the environmental risks to our offspring aren't as significant.

Humans and other primates devote a lot of energy to caring for new babies, so those

babies aren't left to find their own food, or out vulnerable to the elements.

But it's hard to know for sure if this is the right explanation.

Of course, even without a mating season, there are still times during the year when people

are more likely to have kids.

Birth rates in the United States, at least, are highest in the summer and fall, suggesting

that people are having more sex and conceiving more babies during the winter.

That might be because, at least in many regions, the cold drives people indoors where there's

not as much to do.

It could also be because of sperm viability.

A 2013 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that, in more than 6000

samples, average sperm quality was highest during the winter, when the cells are less

likely to be damaged by heat.

But babies are still conceived during warmer months — and in warmer climates in general.

Still, if you live in the United States and your birthday is in August, you are definitely not alone.

It's just not because of a mating season.

Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow which is a Complexly production!

Even if humans don't have a mating season, there's still a lot to learn about sex in general.

And that's where one of our sister channels, Sexplanations, comes in!

You can check it out at youtube.com/sexplanations.

[♪ OUTRO ]

For more infomation >> Why Don't Humans Have a Mating Season? - Duration: 3:07.

-------------------------------------------

When Fish Wore Armor - Duration: 10:19.

420 million years ago, life was definitely better down where it was wetter...under the

sea.

Dry land was still new and relatively empty.

But in the seas, life had reached a fever pitch of diversity, especially among fish.

The world's oceans teemed with sharks, primitive ray-finned fishes, hagfish, and even our very

early ancestors, the lobe-finned fish.

With such an abundance of life unfolding from 420 million to 360 million years ago, it's

no wonder that the Devonian Period is often called the Age of Fish.

But the fish that the Devonian is perhaps best known for were a little different than

the ones you and I know today.

Back then, some fish were more… medieval.

They wore armor, sometimes made of big plates, and sometimes made of interlocking scales.

And the evolution of armor may seem like an obvious adaptation for protection, especially

in the Devonian's crowded seas.

But that armor may actually have served a totally different purpose, one that many animals

still use today -- including you and me.

The earliest armored fish we have fossils of is called Sacabambaspis, a member of the

subclass known as Arandaspida.

This fish lived in the coastal waters of what's now Bolivia, during the Ordovician Period,

some 470 million years ago.

And really, it looked more like a watermelon with a tail than a fish.

It had no jaws, and no dorsal or side fins.

It was only marginally more fish-like than its earlier relatives, hagfish and conodonts,

with which it shared a common ancestor.

But what it lacked in fishiness in the front of its body it made up for with an extravagant

tail, complete with a shark-like fin and a long, scaled rod extending from the tip.

And the most distinctive feature of this fish was, of course, its armor -- a new adaptation

probably made of a primitive bone-like tissue called aspidin, as well as dentine and enameloid,

materials that are very similar to the ones that make up your teeth.

This armor covered the head in big plates, with smaller, joined chevrons running along

the rest of the body.

So Sacabambaspis was the first fish that we know of to acquire this kind of covering, but

it would soon have many imitators.

The period that came next, the Silurian, saw the evolution of armor in many groups of fish,

all around the same time.

One such group was the Heterostracans, whose name means "different scales."

They, too, looked like small, armored ovals with thick, fleshy tails.

Tolypelepis, for example, swam around Latvia 420 million years ago.

It was only about 8 centimeters long, but its armor was especially beautiful, made of

intricate, ridged, interlocking scales.

Other Heterostracans had fused plates on their heads, with diamond-shaped or elongated scales

covering their tails.

But head plates took on new forms in another group of jawless fish: the Osteostracans,

whose name means "bony shields."

The armor on these fish was typically just a large, one-piece shield that covered the

head, made of dentine and bone, with smaller linear scales along the body.

These head shields were wider than the rest of the body, and they sometimes tended toward

extravagance, as in the case of Boreaspis, a fish that sported a large spike sprouting

from its face.

Osteostracans also boasted a brand-new feature: fins -- namely, dorsal fins and small, paddle-like

side-fins that gave them greater mobility in the water.

And this is where armored fish start to take an especially interesting turn.

Because, osteostracans are among the few jawless fish to have a bony internal skeleton, or

endoskeleton.

They didn't have much of one -- their backbones, like those of heterostracans and earlier fish,

was made of cartilage.

But their fins and parts of their skulls were some of the first to be made of bone.

And this brings us to probably the best-known armored fish, the Placoderms.

Placoderm means "plate skin," and plated they indeed were, with big chunks of bone,

dentine and enameloid armor on their head and bodies.

In some placoderms, the covering got up to 5 centimeters thick.

But placoderms were also unique among armored fish in having a complete, mineralized internal

skeleton – meaning they had both an endoskeleton, like you do, as well as an exoskeleton.

And their endoskeleton and exoskeleton were completely separate!

For example, the skull of a placoderm had an internal braincase made of endoskeletal

bone.

Then, as an additional layer outside of that, unconnected, was a thick layer of exoskeletal

bone.

And one more big thing that set Placoderms apart from earlier fish was that they were

the first fish to have jaws, giving them the ability to bite, chew, and grind rather than

just scrape or filter feed.

Now, one of the most widespread placoderms was Bothriolepis, which was able to live in

oceanic environments, estuaries, and freshwater settings.

And while this fish had jaws, it didn't have true teeth.

Instead, it had bony plates that it used to grind up its food, like decomposing plant

and animal matter.

Much bigger than Bothriolepis -- and more carnivorous -- was Dunkleosteus, a giant,

predator that could reach up to 9 meters in length, with massive, shearing jaws.

It didn't have teeth, either, but the sharpened sections of bone it used instead could have

produced up to 7400 newtons of force, making it one of the strongest bites of any fish,

living or extinct, and certainly the strongest bite in the world at the time.

So armored fish came in a variety of shapes and sizes during the Silurian and Devonian,

from tiny Heterostracans to massive Placoderms.

But why did these fish evolve armor in the first place?

I mean, it's possible that armor evolved as armor: to protect them from other

fish and predators.

And indeed, bite marks on armored bone, and remnants of armored fish found in the feces

of other animals, are common in the fossil record.

There are even fossils of Dunkleosteus that bear the bite marks of other Dunkleosteus.

So, if armor evolved just for protection, it certainly wasn't 100% effective.

But that might not have been its only purpose.

Instead, the evolution of bony armor might have had a whole lot to do with storing vital

minerals.

See, bone and other bony tissues contain a lot of Calcium and Phosphorous.

You probably know that these minerals help keep bones strong, but they're also necessary

for a lot of chemical processes in your body, like muscle movement.

That's right, calcium's not just for bones!

You need a certain amount of calcium for your muscles to work, because it makes your muscle

fibers contract.

And Phosphorous is an important part of the little molecule your body uses to store and

transfer energy: Adenosine Triphosphate, or ATP.

So, without phosphorus and calcium, the internal workings of your body - or that of an armored

fish - basically just wouldn't run.

That's why modern animals -- including you -- use bone as a repository for calcium and

phosphorous.

We have special cells that quickly break down bone, sending calcium and phosphorous into

the bloodstream, in a process called bone reabsorption.

When bone tissue is broken down like this, it changes the microscopic structure of the

bone.

And scientists have seen signs of those changes in the armor of heterostracans, osteostracans

and placoderms.

So, it seems that these armored fish did use their bony armor for mineral storage.

And this ability may have been one of the key reasons that these fish were so successful,

allowing them to take over all kinds of watery habitats.

Both calcium and phosphorus are present in water, but they occur in much lower concentrations

in fresh water than they do in the ocean.

And heterostracans, osteostracans and placoderms have been found in both salty AND fresh water

environments.

So then having big bony shields may have acted like a camel's hump for calcium, an

important resource that kept their muscles working at top speed while they explored rivers

and lakes.

And of course, it's also possible armor evolved for both reasons -- as a convenient

storage for muscle-moving minerals, and a nice piece of protection to help keep you

from getting chomped on.

So you can credit these ancient fish for acquiring the evolutionary breakthrough that was the

mineralized suit of armor.

But, do we have them to thank for our bony skeletons?

Probably not.

Or at least not directly.

We might be able to trace them back to a common ancestor, though.

The problem is that, like so many things in paleontology, the relationship of armored

fish to other living things is … vague.

Most of today's bony fish are ray-finned fishes.

And land-dwelling vertebrates are descended from lobe-finned fishes.

But it's not clear how armored fish, especially placoderms, were related to either of these

groups.

Some scientists think that, while both ray-finned and lobe-finned fish shared common ancestors

with armored fish, they aren't their direct descendants.

Others think that most placoderms specifically share common ancestors with ray-finned and

lobe-finned fishes, but there are some placoderms

that are more closely related to lobe-finned fishes

than to other armored fish.

It's confusing, I am aware, but phylogenetics is hard.

And regardless of where they came from, the thick body armor of these fish didn't make

it through to the other side of the Devonian.

The late Devonian is characterized by one of Earth's "big 5" mass extinctions,

with a loss of 50 to 60% of marine genera, including all of the armored fish.

It's not really clear what caused the Devonian extinctions, which occurred in two main bursts.

The end of the Devonian shows signs of a rapid swing from greenhouse to a sudden glaciation

and then back again, a see-sawing of climate that could be responsible for many of the

extinctions.

But scientists aren't yet sure why this climate change occurred -- or whether the

cause was actually something else.

Whatever the cause, armor was no protection against the effects of it, and so the armored

fish disappeared.

In their wake, bony fish and cartilaginous fish like sharks and rays took over the oceans.

And the medieval age of fish came to a close.

Thanks for joining me today, and thanks to all of our patrons who help make these videos

possible.

And we want to thank our first two eontologists, Duncan Miller and David Rasmussen.

Thank you so much for your support!

If you'd like to join them, head on over to patreon.com/eons and pledge for some neat

and nerdy rewards.

And, if you're interested, like I am, in learning more about how our planet works,

then go on over to one of our newest sister channels, Hot Mess, which explores climate

science, the effects of climate change, and how we can create a better future for our

planet and ourselves.

Now, what do you want to know about the history of life on Earth?

Let me know in the comments!

And if you haven't already, be sure to go to youtube.com/eons and subscribe!

For more infomation >> When Fish Wore Armor - Duration: 10:19.

-------------------------------------------

Renault Clio 0.9 TCe Expression AIRCO - Duration: 1:05.

For more infomation >> Renault Clio 0.9 TCe Expression AIRCO - Duration: 1:05.

-------------------------------------------

Learn to sing BTS Anpanman | Lyrics Breakdown, Vocabulary, Memorizing | Kpop Sing-Along - Duration: 21:09.

Learn to sing BTS (방탄소년단) Anpanman / How to sing Anpanman [Lyrics Breakdown + Vocabulary]

This is Kpop Sing-Along

Do you guys recognize this filter from Jimin's selfie posted on twitter on July 19? Cute filter on SNOW app.

Fake Love had the same phrase in the lyrics!

Waiting for you Anpanman

Hi, guys! 안녕하세요!

In this video, I'm going to let you know how to sing along to Anpanman by BTS.

I personally think

this is a really fun song to sing along to.

Let's dive into it.

(I got to know this phrase from Lion King but now all I can think of is this lyrics when I hear/see HAKUNA MATATA. Can anyone relate? lol)

Waiting for you Anpanman

Waiting for you Anpanman

Thank you for watching! Part.2 is coming up soon!

For more infomation >> Learn to sing BTS Anpanman | Lyrics Breakdown, Vocabulary, Memorizing | Kpop Sing-Along - Duration: 21:09.

-------------------------------------------

Peugeot 107 1.0-12V XS NETTE AUTO - Duration: 0:52.

For more infomation >> Peugeot 107 1.0-12V XS NETTE AUTO - Duration: 0:52.

-------------------------------------------

When Fish Wore Armor - Duration: 10:19.

420 million years ago, life was definitely better down where it was wetter...under the

sea.

Dry land was still new and relatively empty.

But in the seas, life had reached a fever pitch of diversity, especially among fish.

The world's oceans teemed with sharks, primitive ray-finned fishes, hagfish, and even our very

early ancestors, the lobe-finned fish.

With such an abundance of life unfolding from 420 million to 360 million years ago, it's

no wonder that the Devonian Period is often called the Age of Fish.

But the fish that the Devonian is perhaps best known for were a little different than

the ones you and I know today.

Back then, some fish were more… medieval.

They wore armor, sometimes made of big plates, and sometimes made of interlocking scales.

And the evolution of armor may seem like an obvious adaptation for protection, especially

in the Devonian's crowded seas.

But that armor may actually have served a totally different purpose, one that many animals

still use today -- including you and me.

The earliest armored fish we have fossils of is called Sacabambaspis, a member of the

subclass known as Arandaspida.

This fish lived in the coastal waters of what's now Bolivia, during the Ordovician Period,

some 470 million years ago.

And really, it looked more like a watermelon with a tail than a fish.

It had no jaws, and no dorsal or side fins.

It was only marginally more fish-like than its earlier relatives, hagfish and conodonts,

with which it shared a common ancestor.

But what it lacked in fishiness in the front of its body it made up for with an extravagant

tail, complete with a shark-like fin and a long, scaled rod extending from the tip.

And the most distinctive feature of this fish was, of course, its armor -- a new adaptation

probably made of a primitive bone-like tissue called aspidin, as well as dentine and enameloid,

materials that are very similar to the ones that make up your teeth.

This armor covered the head in big plates, with smaller, joined chevrons running along

the rest of the body.

So Sacabambaspis was the first fish that we know of to acquire this kind of covering, but

it would soon have many imitators.

The period that came next, the Silurian, saw the evolution of armor in many groups of fish,

all around the same time.

One such group was the Heterostracans, whose name means "different scales."

They, too, looked like small, armored ovals with thick, fleshy tails.

Tolypelepis, for example, swam around Latvia 420 million years ago.

It was only about 8 centimeters long, but its armor was especially beautiful, made of

intricate, ridged, interlocking scales.

Other Heterostracans had fused plates on their heads, with diamond-shaped or elongated scales

covering their tails.

But head plates took on new forms in another group of jawless fish: the Osteostracans,

whose name means "bony shields."

The armor on these fish was typically just a large, one-piece shield that covered the

head, made of dentine and bone, with smaller linear scales along the body.

These head shields were wider than the rest of the body, and they sometimes tended toward

extravagance, as in the case of Boreaspis, a fish that sported a large spike sprouting

from its face.

Osteostracans also boasted a brand-new feature: fins -- namely, dorsal fins and small, paddle-like

side-fins that gave them greater mobility in the water.

And this is where armored fish start to take an especially interesting turn.

Because, osteostracans are among the few jawless fish to have a bony internal skeleton, or

endoskeleton.

They didn't have much of one -- their backbones, like those of heterostracans and earlier fish,

was made of cartilage.

But their fins and parts of their skulls were some of the first to be made of bone.

And this brings us to probably the best-known armored fish, the Placoderms.

Placoderm means "plate skin," and plated they indeed were, with big chunks of bone,

dentine and enameloid armor on their head and bodies.

In some placoderms, the covering got up to 5 centimeters thick.

But placoderms were also unique among armored fish in having a complete, mineralized internal

skeleton – meaning they had both an endoskeleton, like you do, as well as an exoskeleton.

And their endoskeleton and exoskeleton were completely separate!

For example, the skull of a placoderm had an internal braincase made of endoskeletal

bone.

Then, as an additional layer outside of that, unconnected, was a thick layer of exoskeletal

bone.

And one more big thing that set Placoderms apart from earlier fish was that they were

the first fish to have jaws, giving them the ability to bite, chew, and grind rather than

just scrape or filter feed.

Now, one of the most widespread placoderms was Bothriolepis, which was able to live in

oceanic environments, estuaries, and freshwater settings.

And while this fish had jaws, it didn't have true teeth.

Instead, it had bony plates that it used to grind up its food, like decomposing plant

and animal matter.

Much bigger than Bothriolepis -- and more carnivorous -- was Dunkleosteus, a giant,

predator that could reach up to 9 meters in length, with massive, shearing jaws.

It didn't have teeth, either, but the sharpened sections of bone it used instead could have

produced up to 7400 newtons of force, making it one of the strongest bites of any fish,

living or extinct, and certainly the strongest bite in the world at the time.

So armored fish came in a variety of shapes and sizes during the Silurian and Devonian,

from tiny Heterostracans to massive Placoderms.

But why did these fish evolve armor in the first place?

I mean, it's possible that armor evolved as armor: to protect them from other

fish and predators.

And indeed, bite marks on armored bone, and remnants of armored fish found in the feces

of other animals, are common in the fossil record.

There are even fossils of Dunkleosteus that bear the bite marks of other Dunkleosteus.

So, if armor evolved just for protection, it certainly wasn't 100% effective.

But that might not have been its only purpose.

Instead, the evolution of bony armor might have had a whole lot to do with storing vital

minerals.

See, bone and other bony tissues contain a lot of Calcium and Phosphorous.

You probably know that these minerals help keep bones strong, but they're also necessary

for a lot of chemical processes in your body, like muscle movement.

That's right, calcium's not just for bones!

You need a certain amount of calcium for your muscles to work, because it makes your muscle

fibers contract.

And Phosphorous is an important part of the little molecule your body uses to store and

transfer energy: Adenosine Triphosphate, or ATP.

So, without phosphorus and calcium, the internal workings of your body - or that of an armored

fish - basically just wouldn't run.

That's why modern animals -- including you -- use bone as a repository for calcium and

phosphorous.

We have special cells that quickly break down bone, sending calcium and phosphorous into

the bloodstream, in a process called bone reabsorption.

When bone tissue is broken down like this, it changes the microscopic structure of the

bone.

And scientists have seen signs of those changes in the armor of heterostracans, osteostracans

and placoderms.

So, it seems that these armored fish did use their bony armor for mineral storage.

And this ability may have been one of the key reasons that these fish were so successful,

allowing them to take over all kinds of watery habitats.

Both calcium and phosphorus are present in water, but they occur in much lower concentrations

in fresh water than they do in the ocean.

And heterostracans, osteostracans and placoderms have been found in both salty AND fresh water

environments.

So then having big bony shields may have acted like a camel's hump for calcium, an

important resource that kept their muscles working at top speed while they explored rivers

and lakes.

And of course, it's also possible armor evolved for both reasons -- as a convenient

storage for muscle-moving minerals, and a nice piece of protection to help keep you

from getting chomped on.

So you can credit these ancient fish for acquiring the evolutionary breakthrough that was the

mineralized suit of armor.

But, do we have them to thank for our bony skeletons?

Probably not.

Or at least not directly.

We might be able to trace them back to a common ancestor, though.

The problem is that, like so many things in paleontology, the relationship of armored

fish to other living things is … vague.

Most of today's bony fish are ray-finned fishes.

And land-dwelling vertebrates are descended from lobe-finned fishes.

But it's not clear how armored fish, especially placoderms, were related to either of these

groups.

Some scientists think that, while both ray-finned and lobe-finned fish shared common ancestors

with armored fish, they aren't their direct descendants.

Others think that most placoderms specifically share common ancestors with ray-finned and

lobe-finned fishes, but there are some placoderms

that are more closely related to lobe-finned fishes

than to other armored fish.

It's confusing, I am aware, but phylogenetics is hard.

And regardless of where they came from, the thick body armor of these fish didn't make

it through to the other side of the Devonian.

The late Devonian is characterized by one of Earth's "big 5" mass extinctions,

with a loss of 50 to 60% of marine genera, including all of the armored fish.

It's not really clear what caused the Devonian extinctions, which occurred in two main bursts.

The end of the Devonian shows signs of a rapid swing from greenhouse to a sudden glaciation

and then back again, a see-sawing of climate that could be responsible for many of the

extinctions.

But scientists aren't yet sure why this climate change occurred -- or whether the

cause was actually something else.

Whatever the cause, armor was no protection against the effects of it, and so the armored

fish disappeared.

In their wake, bony fish and cartilaginous fish like sharks and rays took over the oceans.

And the medieval age of fish came to a close.

Thanks for joining me today, and thanks to all of our patrons who help make these videos

possible.

And we want to thank our first two eontologists, Duncan Miller and David Rasmussen.

Thank you so much for your support!

If you'd like to join them, head on over to patreon.com/eons and pledge for some neat

and nerdy rewards.

And, if you're interested, like I am, in learning more about how our planet works,

then go on over to one of our newest sister channels, Hot Mess, which explores climate

science, the effects of climate change, and how we can create a better future for our

planet and ourselves.

Now, what do you want to know about the history of life on Earth?

Let me know in the comments!

And if you haven't already, be sure to go to youtube.com/eons and subscribe!

For more infomation >> When Fish Wore Armor - Duration: 10:19.

-------------------------------------------

Unleashing Ultimate Power through Joint Venture Affiliate Marketing | AWeurope 2018 - Duration: 25:48.

Alright, welcome, guys.

How are you doing, Eric?

I'm pretty well.

Onstage again, meet you here again, Ido.

So, you know, we all have a lot of fun at these conferences and we always say,

when you're out in the evenings, that's often the best time to meet people

who can help further your career. So, how did you guys all meet and come together?

I've heard there are some stories circulating about how that went down

So I don't know who wants to jump in on how you guys met.

Tinder? Tinder or Grindr?

Now you have to go full disclosure. Leave nothing out.

I'll take it. We're all living in Tel Aviv,

But the funny thing is that actually we had to go all the way to Bangkok to meet each other.

So I actually met Omri in Tel Aviv. It was a meetup

and this is, by the way, we can start with takeaways,

like my first takeaway would be like, "Go to meetups where you're from

or whatever city you are." I met Omri.

I didn't go to any conferences before. He introduced me to this world.

I was that "River Noodle Mastermind". That's what you call it.

The name of the restaurant.

And then we went to the conference, I met G, I met David, I met Eden, we ended up sharing a floor.

And great things have evolved from that.

So about those, you guys all have some great JV success stories.

Can you talk a little bit about why these kinds of relationships are better than going alone?

And then talk a little bit about your particular ones here.

So we give this one to Omri first.

Basically, at the end of the day, you are limited in what you can do and what you cannot do.

I think that one of the key takeaways that you can do when you wanna do a JV

is that you have to focus, first of all, and see what your weak points are

and to see how, by solving them, you can scale.

Because at the end of day, what the most important thing is , is to scale.

Once you kind of can pinpoint and see what other people can help you out with,

and then you can collaborate with, you can see that the result will go much more than you thought.

Synergy, right? Yes.

I think it's important to mention the mentality here because the mind frame of a lot of affiliates

is this a kind of cloak-and-dagger, you know, "Let's keep everything secret."

and I think it's very outdated. It's very short-sighted.

A lot of people a lot of people out there are starting out in affiliate marketing

and don't have these opportunities to do great JV's. Start sharing.

Start masterminding with like-minded people. These will turn into JV's.

That's how a lot of us started together working. Just by sharing information.

You see how each other works, and then from there, great, great things can happen.

So I think the mind frame really needs to evolve in the industry and not be cloak-and-dagger anymore.

I mean, things are changing a lot now. Yeah.

You know what I mean? What you know now is not gonna work in two months, necessarily.

So I think that's important. That makes sense. You have anything to add, David?

Yes, for me, basically, the three main reasons why you want to JV,

the first one, like the other guy said, it's about sharing information and experience.

Now the second one is resources. Like, when you partner up with someone,

you get access to to his resources and obviously, he gets access to your resources.

The last one is about networking, connections, stuff like this.

Basically, if I partner up with someone, I get access to his networks, his connections.

Yeah, so in the info space and in the education space JV's, I feel like I've been around for a long time,

but you're right. In the affiliate space, there really is that sort of like siloed mentality

where people have their head down.

They have their own little piece of real estate and they don't want to give it up.

So you're saying, obviously, for people looking to get into it,

it's really about opening up that mindset, understanding that people can be bigger

than what their own efforts are.

Everyone has their own little secret things that maybe you don't want to get out, okay?

Yeah. But there's a lot of things which you know,

you think you know that you're the only one who knows it.

You're not. Okay? Loads of people know it.

Yeah.

You find one of your secrets, you'll be in a mastermind with twenty people

and you'll be like and when you give a little tip here, and everyone's like,

"Yeah, yeah, I know that, I know that". You don't

None of us are really that special.

I mean, there's power in numbers and it's about your network, especially when you're starting out

and anyone here that runs Facebook, the last couple of months, you know,

my network has been the only thing that's gotten me through that.

Yeah, and we've done very well since then because of it, and it's hugely important.

This is not a massive industry but there's a lot of power in this industry

and the power is in numbers.

Yeah, the performance industry is, it always boggles my mind how much power

we have as individuals to get our message out there with the tools at our disposal.

It's scary, sometimes even. Yeah.

But at the end of the day, the cake is big enough. You know what I mean?

That's right.

There's a lot. It's so useful especially when you deal with Facebook or Google.

It's such huge traffic sources, so even if really all the 20 people in the mastermind

will do the same, will run the same offer to the same Geo

It will take time to saturate as long as it's a big job. And I always say, too, like if you're worried about

sharing a piece of the pie, you just have to set up JV's in situations where you actually make the pie bigger

in what you do, and you can do that exponentially. Bigger than what you might have been doing before.

Very cool. So, I'm interested for some specific situations that sort of call for JV's.

Like, what are some situations that sort of cry out for JV's,

and then what would be good ways to approach companies specifically about making these happen? Ido.

Actually, I would like and I'm happy you asked about the approach.

This is something that, unfortunately, I see very often and this is like new affiliates

and they're coming and no one knows them and they're approaching and they ask for a JV

and it's important to understand it on the other side of the affiliate.

They're sitting on either a network or either a service with a big infrastructure,

and to make a JV takes a lot of effort. So before you go and ask for a JV,

I would say, first of things, start and work like every other client.

Get to know, evaluate the other side, let them evaluate you.

If we see you're serious, if you see we are serious, maybe we're not good for you.

And then, this is actually where these meetups, this conference is coming very handy.

Meet up with this agency or with the network and then start talking about JV.

Rather than just starting with a JV before everybody gets to know you.

Yeah, and we were talking earlier about beginners, right? Because JV's, you guys walk in

and you guys are superaffiliates. You've been doing this for a really long time.

You can approach a network and say, "Okay, let's talk about a JV."

But I want to combine that with the previous one where we were talking about beginners.

If you're more of a beginner getting into this space, we talked about wanting to

open yourself up more to partnerships with other affiliates,

but do you think, in doing that, you're also gonna gain more leverage and

have more ability to work with networks if you're actually sort of partnered with

a group of other affiliates more so than going on your own because

now we're just going to be more open, to be working with a group of affiliates

that all have like, synergistic powers than maybe just one stand alone. Is that accurate?

Yeah, I believe. Yes.

Obviously, as a group of affiliates, you have more volume so you can impact the network way more.

So obviously, you will get more attention, more resources, maybe better payouts and better offers.

So it's good to approach a network as a group over just a solo affiliate,

especially when you just start out and you don't really have volume.

Exactly.

I want to tie it out to the beginners because it is important,

because I'm sure there are a lot of beginners in the crowd.

When I first started out, I remember my business partner 'til today. I met him from STM forum.

Shout out to to STM!

And it was, when we just started out, we didn't have the budget to test all the offers

and the angles, and back in the day, it was harder.

This wasn't done with many spy tools as there is today, so you really had to test and come up with everything

by yourself from the beginning, and the way that we started is not by directly being in a JV partnership

but just by sharing information. So we started by sharing information.

Then we said, "Hey, let's try and ride the campaign together."

Then, the campaign was successful, and another campaign came up and then suddenly

you're in a business partnership, you know? And that grew.

We actually, in the company, every now and then, we're hosting for our clients these masterminds.

This gives them the opportunity to JV with themselves rather than approach us,

and we find it like, we get great feedback, results. Affiliates can approach each other and, like you said

it's important to find someone in your level or maybe a bit above, but when the difference is too much

it's just harder and it's like the Yeah, I think that's hugely important

to understand who to JV with and who not to JV with. Yeah.

You know what I mean? Because a lot of people were very, especially if you're new and you're just starting out.

Someone asks you if you wanna do a JV, you're like, "Yeah, let's do a JV."

Is it the right JV for you? You know what I mean?

I think the only way to really analyse those is to look at yourself, give yourself a little bit of respect

and look at your own business and go, "Okay, what am I good at? What am I not good at?"

Through developing your own business, outsourcing, looking at where you're wasting time,

things like that, you're already opening yourself up to outside sources that can help you

and through that, you can identify what you need in your JV's, and then that way you,

the JV that I have with Media500 is a quite an extensive one.

To the extent where we also JV with other JV partners, a lot of people sitting actually in the audience today.

The only reason we're able to develop that in such a way is because our skills complement each other.

And if you don't have that, you can actually find the opposite occur.

So going into a JV can damage your relationship and cause you more problems than good.

So it's important to analyse that to begin with, instead of just jumping in. Start slow. Don't go full force.

Yeah, but I want to touch on something already said, because you said for beginners,

that every opportunity for JV, they will jump on it? I don't think it's the case.

I think it's the opposite because when you're starting out, you just don't understand finance that well

so if someone tells you, "Hey, let's JV and I will take 50% of the profit." For example.

The first thing that will come to your mind will be, "Hell no." Right? "I will never do that."

But then, when you start working on the numbers, you do it properly, you realise that it's better to have,

let's say, 50% of 20k a day than 100% of 1k a day.

So it's really also, it's kind of a mindset change that beginners need to go through

In order to really be able to open up to the JV opportunities.

So what are you saying, like, you don't want to split it 50/50 right off the bat?

What would be a potential scenario that could evolve with, that you could start with

so that you're not committing 50% off the bat?

That's what I said in the beginning. That the best thing is just to kind of test the water

and see everything, share information, you know?

So decide that this is the specific offer that you're going to run together

and you're not going to withhold anything. You're gonna share the stats and everything,

and from there, you're gonna grow and you're gonna see, "Okay, we have an opportunity here.

Now, let's see how we can scale it and then we can talk numbers."

But it really depends on the JV and the nature of it, and what the other side provides.

Just to address that point in particular, when you're talking about,

"Okay, that's money out of my pocket." Like Omri said, I completely agree that it's the volume.

But more than that, I think it's very short-sighted to just look at, "This is the amount of percent

that I may lose from my existing campaign."

You need to be a little bit longer-sighted and look at, "Okay, what else am I going to gain from this JV?"

So if you're already in a position where you have a setup, you have your resources which can be shared

between you, you know, your reach is much larger. I can get to places, for example,

that maybe Guillaume can't. Guillaume can get me things that I can't get otherwise.

Vice versa with everyone sitting on this panel. We all help each other.

You find that if you do things for each other, it doesn't impact the JV specifically.

They benefit you as businessmen. That's some massive impact.

Yeah, if you only think about the affiliate commissions, you're gonna miss out on this other value

that you're getting by this business relation.

You know, I've had JV's that I've gone into through helping JV partners with their partners.

Which kind of sounds weird because it's like, "Why would I help you with another one of your JV's?"

or "I'm not getting money." It's gonna make me money at some point, anyway.

It's about helping each other. This is all about relationships.

And I think people need to think about what you get outside of it because it's huge.

So you've got JV's within JV's, you've got meta-JV's. Give me a ballpark.

How many JV's are you currently on, maybe if that's a question for the panel?

How many JV's do you guys have going on at any given time?

I mean look, I love us seeing on stage, for example. We mentioned earlier how we met.

We all live next to each other, but we met through conferences after STM and Affiliate World,

but we ended up coming back into Tel Aviv, and we were sharing an office together.

We created a little hub of a group of companies, which was great, so

although we have done JV's in the past, we just share information a lot.

That in itself is a JV. So it depends what you define as a JV,

but you know, we do a decent amount.

Yeah, I mean it depends on what your business model is. You know what I mean?

You could hire loads and loads of people and do everything internally,

or you can have your core business of resources, structure yourself to be able to run without you,

and then get the additional benefits through JV's. That's my model, personally.

Especially for provider, it doesn't have to be a JVwhere you get a cut out of something, for example

as with Media500, a lot of times they have affiliates, we have issues and then like,

"Oh, Ido. Maybe they can help out." And he doesn't want anything in return

if something closes, because he knows it's the other way around.

So that's also something to take into consideration.

We basically complete the needs of each other.

So if the affiliate needs something, we're gonna provide it. If we need something for example,

just as an example that come to my head.

We had a campaign running that was on pretty much unread percent ROI

and then took it over and tweaked a bit of the ad copy, changed the creative a bit

and it literally jumped to 200% ROI, so it's like straight results.

So when they line up right, they're a no-brainer for the networks as well.

No, definitely. I mean it always starts, like you said before, as a normal company

affiliate business relationship, and with trust and loyalty and with time,

then it evolves into a JV and with different kinds of JV's, so these are like extensive JV's

but there's different levels to help each other which is like sharing information, attending the masterminds,

all the meetups. It's important here especially from that perspective

to look at data as affiliates, especially media. When you're buying, you need insight on your traffic.

Like if you're working with someone who, you need a custom audience,

you need this, you need that.

If you're a casino or you're a network, you don't really want to give a certain amount of that

information away because it could potentially damage you.

I'm vice-versa, whereas when, that's one of the benefits of working with a network.

Not that they share other people's information by any case,

but you're able to ask the questions you need to ask and get the information

because there's openness, you know what I mean?

I think that's important if you're an affiliate who wants to work with a network

or you want to work with a company. Like Ido said, you need to develop that relationship first

because there is an element of trust there that is important.

Yeah, and I just see it so being so mutually beneficial so that instead of affiliates kind of going off

as wildcards doing stuff that the network doesn't know about, and if the network's able to open up

a little bit as well and then the affiliate's able to open up, then you get something synergistic

that works for both parties. The traffic quality is a massive thing, especially in

a lot of things and we can only provide higher quality if we know what we need to do,

and that's, it's always a sticking point there and I think this solves that.

Nice. Okay, so from an affiliate organization standpoint, what are ways that you can set up your organization

to be conducive and good for JV's, essentially? What are some things you can do there?

Look, I think it's very important to understand what you need in your business.

Understand what you're good at. Identify. You need to think like a businessman.

Don't be an affiliate. You want to be a one-man band? It's only going to get you so far.

Also, if we're talking about JV's, you're not gonna be able to work on that many JV's.

You're not gonna be able to give as much resources and time that your JV or your partner deserves.

So you really need to identify, streamline your existing business, look at where you're wasting time,

and optimise it, create an operation, create an infrastructure and resources and organise yourself

to be open to outside sources, and then from there the sky really is the limit.

As long as you have that internal structure, you need to give your own business a bit of respect

just being yourself. But I can tell you from the other side of things

Especially when you approach a big network, the chances they will JV with you are very slim.

I know that that's how we do in our company.

The account managers know that there are certain three rules or whatever we decide, that

if the affiliate is not in that standard, we do not JV.

So it's the amount of time he's working with us, it's the money that was flowing and

the communication is a big key. So like when the manager comes to me,

he's like, "Oh, we have a potential JV." Then it's like, "Is he qualified?"

Yeah, absolutely.

But I also think that even if the structural kind of organisation, even when you come to these events

and you're talking to people, and it can be colleagues.

Whenever you kind of hear what they do right now in the business, always in the back of your mind say,

"How can we collaborate? How can we collaborate?"

Always look for this opportunity and whenever you hear something, "Ah, you know what?

Actually, I have a way that you can do even more."

"Let's let's set up a meeting." or "Let's just sit down." But not too much because you can tell when an affiliate

just wants to uh. Of course, you have to be smart about it

and you have to be not too much of a hustler with your friends.

But at the same time always look for a win-win situation, and always be open to these ideas in your mind.

I think the key there is about, honestly it's a bit of a cliche, but working smarter as opposed to harder.

That's the basis of joint ventureships. That is what it is.

And if you do that in your own business, you do that with colleagues you do that like you say

when you meet people in these conferences think about, "Okay, how can we help each other

How can we help each other? What ways to get something in return?"

Because you find a lot of the time, you give a little and you get a lot back without even asking for it.

A lot of people here meet each other for the first time in these conferences and become the best of friends

Go fly around the world to go meet each other. That's the vibe. You know what I mean?

That's one of the great things about it. So, you know, embrace it.

It's easily one of the best things about this industry and that's sort of a question like,

is there a line between? Where does friendship play into JV's?

Like you guys are like, and how important is your gut when you meet someone about like,

Would you JV with people you wouldn't want to hang out with?

It's a good question. It's a curve ball.

Let's put it this way. We all go into Ibiza after.

I guess this is also like a secret sauce for a good collaboration and I think

if you're looking for someone to partner up and this is something I've thought about bringing up but like

it's a lot of times when you're a beginner, like when you're starting as an affiliate, you always reach out to

your friends or whatever, but I am actually very much against it.

I really think that the best connections, the best friendship that's built outside of the,

like from the business and then towards the JV, it's like

It depends who you're talking about. You're talking about your mate from school?

You know, I wouldn't recommend, personally.

Because you may be good friends, but it can damage your relationship.

We are friends by it's friendship built on a business environment.So that's important, I think.

To just go and work with friends and family, personally, I

Me as well but also instead, if you would work with someone you don't necessarily will hang out with.

But that you wouldn't want to hang out with. I can tell you that we JV'd with people that were in their

50's and with kids and with nothing in common. It's not like I will go out with him

and go to Ibiza together, but it still makes sense. Business-wise, it made sense.

I wouldn't like, make that a threshold.

If it's someone that's same age as me and I would not trust, then it's a different story.

Trust is something else than getting along in a friendly way, I think.

You don't need to be best friends, but We need some synergy.

So we have a stronger JV with native guys that is actually part of the STM and

we're actually turning into a JV company, so we're building now

technological software to optimise native labs. We're not best friends, but we're like friends.

We're not hanging out, it's not coming to Ibiza.

So there needs to be some synergy, but you don't need to be the best friends who go into JV.

It's a business at the end of the day. We're here to make money.

A lot of the time I think it's quite a young industry, right?

So a lot of the time, people do let their emotions cloud their judgment, their business judgment.

I think that's a massive mistake.

So when you're asking, you know, would you hang out with them?

Would I have a beer with the guy? Would we be able to talk about, break bread? Whatever, fine. Yeah, of course

Otherwise, how are you even going to communicate in your relationship? But you don't have to love each other.

You're gonna argue, you know? You need to be able to separate emotions from business

and make better decisions. We argue a few times a day by the way. Yeah.

Well, speaking of arguing, I've done a number of JV's, most of them very good. I've had a few bad ones.

Specifically, I like how this question is worded, what are your biggest fuck-ups JV-ing?

Do you have any that you can talk about and that you could help people learn from what not to do in JV's?

I can't without saying the name of the person. Oh, really?

But we did have a JV that we went into like a year and a half ago, where the potential like the numbers

we've seen was huge, and we really like we're excited about it and we ended up

investing like 5-figures into developing technological solutions in order to make it happen and everything

but it was like an industry in their dying phase, and we came late and, in this time there was an advertiser

so we said that we're gonna take care of the media part and they will take care of the product

and we will get also from the product and what happened in the end is that we were the one

bringing all the revenue in and they were not bringing anything, and if we were smart about it,

this is kind of the lesson here, is to foresee they had so many technical issues that we should have foreseen

before we even got into it, and then also you have to set it in advance and

You have to set it in advance and say, "What will happen if I will bring all the revenue and

you will not be able to provide? How would we split it?"

So it's really important to make these ground rules before you even start.

And catch waves earlier. Yeah, exactly.

That's really a key point, I think.

There's probably a lot of people contracts, no contracts, wherever, wherever, it depends on who you are.

If you're a network or a company, it's slightly different than if you were an affiliate but

Whenever I start a JV, I like to say, "Okay, what is it we're JV-ing on, what are we doing here?"

So everyone's on the same page, because otherwise, things can get confusing

and some people can feel bad. And if you're working with someone who necessarily

can't make that differentiation, who can't say this is good, this is not good. This is cool, this is not cool.

It can end very badly, so just make sure you're on the same page with the person. Don't jump into it.

Let's test something together and like you said start with sharing,

develop into testing maybe a small project together

and then from there, make sure you you're both on the same page.

Otherwise, things can go down and uncomfortable. This is something, I mean, where everybody's cool.

We're a younger industry and a lot of times people, and I see that making bills based on Skype

or based on a JV, and they say, "Yeah, it's written on Skype. It's valid."

But no, this is my opinion. I believe in making a contract thinking five years ahead and everything written down.

So when there's a contract, I think the other side is also

And it's very different for you because you're a company. Service provider, you provide a lot of things to people

whereas with affiliates, it's very dynamic so you can't write it down XYZ

because that's going to change in the course of a week ten times.

But maybe having specific guidelines, and also we come from Israel. Israel's very much a handshake mentality.

It's probably one of the only places in the world where it kind of works.

It's a bit weird and it's uncomfortable for me coming from England who's very much, you know

contracts this, that it can work like that. It does somehow work, but again,

It depends on the people. You have to, like you said, whether you're a service

provider or an affiliate or a network, you have to have already built a relationship and communication,

and worked together to begin with, you know what I mean?

And from there certain amount of trust is developed with understandings and then

the extensiveness of a contract, sometimes just a summary on Skype and

sharing funds or, because you may be working with the network, and he's receiving the money

you're paying the money it kind of figures itself out.

But I don't know about specifics for affiliates, how relevant like

There just has to be that understanding that you're

There's a certain amount of value you're gonna be putting in, and you wouldn't want to work with someone

who is taking value that they weren't earning, and so that's like the gut part of it, too, in a way

and the trust in the relationship you build right?

Because as soon as you've got a situation where you feel someone isn't pulling their weight,

that's where there can be these troubles.

Let's end it on a positive note here. Contracts and everything.

We're pretty much done here. But like, just we haven't even sort of mentioned

you guys have been working on some pretty high level deals.

You talked about JV's within JV's, we're talking like 6-figure JV's here, right?

Yeah? Even higher? Even more? Seven.

Well, this is the kind of stuff you can do when you evolve your affiliate relationships

with great networks like Media500 and work with fine gentlemen like we have on the stage here.

So I want to thank these guys for coming on the panel. Let's give them a round of applause.