►
From YouTube: Praise Quant 8 - Review Session
Description
🙏 Thank you for watching! Hit 👍 and subscribe 🚩 to support this work
🌱Join the Community🌱
on Discord https://discord.gg/uM4ZWDjNfK
or say hello on Telegram https://t.me/tecommons
Join the conversation https://forum.tecommons.org/
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/tecmns
Learn more http://tecommons.org/
A
Yeah,
this
will
be
the
praise
quant
review
session
for
the
period
of
february
2022
I'll
be
facilitating
olivia.
Are
you
down
to
take
notes
again.
B
A
Wonderful,
thank
you
so
we'll
just
get
started
with
intentions
and
distractions.
My
distraction,
all
the
things
I
was
supposed
to
be
doing.
While
I
was
in
meetings.
D
Thank
you
yeah.
My
intention
is
share
my
feedback
on
the
praise.
My
experience
actually
was
better
this
time,
distractions,
none
and
I'll
pass
it
to
bear.
E
B
B
B
Yeah
so
that
and
I'm
trying
to
find
emojis
for
this
post
on
the
praise
rules
of
praise
and
yeah,
my
intention
is
to
take
notes
and
learn
more
about
everyone's
experience
with
quantification
back
to
you
mitch.
A
D
Yeah
actually,
like
my
experience,
was
way
better.
I
don't
know
if
that
was
a
thing
that
already
was
there
or
something
that
I
just
discovered.
But
when
your
price
has
duplicate,
you
don't
need
to
put
like
the
hashtag,
5t,
f
or
whatever
you
just
put
the
numbers,
and
it
also
work.
B
Yeah
for
me,
I
think
there
was
a
a
bug
that
still
not
solved
of
like
some
some
duplicates.
We
just
can't
can
put
that
there
are
duplicates
and
it.
B
More
than
the
last
times
and
yeah
the
thing
with
the
the
mount
manu
praises,
I
just
realized
that
they
were
all
like
so
one
next
to
the
other.
They
were
too
similar
to
be
duplicates
or
from
it
was
confusing.
So
I
asked
him
and
he
said
that
he
was
doing
sometimes
two
weeks
in
a
row.
So
that's
why
we
were
seeing
like
phrases
that
were
actually
from
different
weeks,
but
then
they
were
showing
up
right
next
to
the
other,
and
maybe
it
was
a
continuous
work
that
someone
was
doing.
B
You
know
like
participating
in
the
rewards
working
group
and
then
it
would
seem
like
it
was
a
duplicate
praise,
but
it
was
actually
from
two
weeks
so
yeah
we've
been
looking
into
that
of
the
problems
of
the
transcription.
Hopefully
we'll
solve
that
soon
I'll
pass
to
mike.
E
Yeah,
thank
you
yeah
this.
This
is,
I
think,
my
third
or
fourth
brand,
and
I
I
find
it
it's
working
very
well.
I
mean
I
didn't,
have
any
problems
with
not
being
able
to
identify
duplicates,
for
instance,
every
time
I
tried
it
worked.
Okay,
the
only
thing
I
think
is
that
when
you've
got,
you
know
one
what,
let's
use
an
example,
let's
say,
there's
50
to
go
through
it.
You
know
it's
it's
pretty
difficult,
although
nothing
possible
to
find
duplicates
easily.
E
I
think
will
be
my
feedback
on
that
one
that
yeah
when
went
very
well,
maybe
can
I
pass
it
to
mitch.
A
Yeah
sure
mine
was
pretty
easy.
I
think
again,
I'm
just
waiting
for
this
like
upgrade
to
like
marking
duplicates.
I
think
it'll
it'll
erase
a
lot
of
these
problems
with
just
like
duplicate
fatigue.
But
apart
from
that,
I
was
really
noticing
what
libby
was
saying
with
like
the
the
transcribed
praise
like
coming
through,
and
it
was
really
hard
to
sort
out
duplicates
in
that
sense
yeah.
That
was
it
from
my
end,
I'll
pass
it
to
bunjoy.
C
It
went
fairly
smoothly
this
round.
This
is
my
second
pool.
C
C
But
I
didn't
know
what
for
what
context
that
was,
and
at
the
surface
it
seemed
like
a
three
or
five
just
referencing
articles
and
then,
when
I
spoke
to
that
person,
she
clarified
like
the
extent
like
these
were
really
lengthy
articles,
and
I
it
took
that
person
a
good
amount
of
time
to
find
them
so
that
helped.
Allow
me,
given
a
more
accurate
score,
no
issues
with
duplicates.
C
A
Yeah
indeed
so,
we'll
move
on
to
this
one.
Was
it
easy
to
sort
of
duplicates?
Did
you
have
any
questions
about
a
specific
duplicate
that
was
giving
you
trouble
I'll,
just
leave
it
open
if
anyone
has
anything
where
they
got
stuck
and
they
weren't
sure
to
quantify
it
as
a
duplicate
or
anything
like
that.
D
I
don't
know
if
that
was
a
good
move,
but
I
do
not
remember
who
it
was,
but
I
remember
that
feeling
of
probably
because
so
many
people
I
don't
know
if
it
was,
I
do
but
yeah
there
was
like
very
similar
praise
but
at
the
same
time
like
different
vibes
and
I
felt
like
quantifying
it
twice-
I
don't
know
if
that's
what
we
expect
as
a
group
or
or
not.
A
All
right:
well,
if
you
remember
it,
just
bring
it
up.
Yeah.
B
A
Yeah
no
problem,
though
anyone
else
any
anywhere,
they
got
stuck
like
marking,
duplicates
or
something
they
weren't
sure
about.
A
Okay
cool:
were
you
able
to
find
enough
context
to
adequately
quantify
praise
we'll
just
go
around
one
by
one
you
could
say
yes
or
if
you
want
to
say
more,
go
ahead,
could
start
with
boonjoy.
I'm
curious,
since
it's
your
second
time,
if
you
had
a
yeah
go
ahead.
C
C
I
did
I
reached
out
to
those
individuals
I
think
all,
but
one
or
two
got
back
to
me
and
it
really
helped
out
and
it
was
a
real.
It
wasn't
like
a
very
high
effort.
C
Action
on
my
part
simply
sent
them
a
dm
one
sentence
and
they
got
back
to
me
usually
within
the
day,
and
I
thought
that
I
would
you
know,
have
to
go
back
and
forth,
but
it's
just
literally
one
dm
gave
me
a
lot
of
context
of
the
amount
of
effort
put
in
and
it
it.
It
allowed
me
to
give
a
more
accurate
score
I
would
have
given
for
like
one
example,
I
would
have
given
a
three
or
five
for
those
articles.
I
think
I
ended
up
giving
her
15
or
18..
C
I
don't
know
how
the
scale
works
so
yeah,
no.
C
E
Thanks
yeah,
what
I'd
said
before
is
probably
the
main
thing
that
I
wanted
to
say.
The
only
other
thing
I
would
say,
though,
is
that
obviously
there's
two
sides
to
praise
the
laws
who
were
praising
and
those
who
were
being
praised.
I
think
what
I'm
what
I
think
I'm
saying-
and
this
is
a
burning
man-
I
know
others
was
february,
but
I
think
I'm
seeing
people
more
effectively
using
praise
in
what
they're
saying
you
know
more
more
detail,
more
context,
that's
what
I
find
pass
it
to
libby.
Please.
B
I
think
it
was
around
the
translation,
the
trench,
translation
team
and
and
another
one
was
of
someone
working
on
something
technical
that
I
had
never
heard
the
name.
But
then
I
just
assumed
it
was
a
high
impact
work
because
it
was
similar
to
praises
given
to
like
sam
and
paulo.
H
People
being
late
yeah,
I
think
I
think,
most
of
the
time
I
I
had
enough
context,
I
think,
like
yeah
and
in
the
phrases
that
were
just
like
you
were
four
or
something
like
that.
I
felt
that
most
of
the
time
I
I
understood
what
was
being
talked
about,
so
I
passed
two
I
don't
know
who
went
already.
I
just
jumped
in.
F
F
D
I
feel
like
no
like
we
should
still
do
some
education
on
the
like,
I
feel
like.
I
was
fine
because
I
I'm
so
involved
in
the
community,
but
I
feel
like,
like
some
parts
were
like
okay.
I
know
like
this.
I
did
this
and
okay.
This
deserve
this
amount
of
this
other
amount,
but
I
feel
like
it
was
not
because
it
was
in
the
praise.
It
was
more
like
because
I
knew
the
guy
and
I
knew
what
they
were
doing.
D
J
A
Great
and
well,
I
think,
we're
just
missing
myself
and
yeah.
I
think
it
was
fairly
easy
for
me
yeah.
I
think
libby
was
right,
there's
some
stuff
that
happens
in
comms
that
I
don't
know
what's
going
on,
and
so
maybe
that's
something
that
we
could
point
to
like
weekly
updates.
I
don't
know
yeah.
I
think
zepp
has
a
point.
Maybe
there's
a
better
way
to
get
the
information
from
working
groups,
so
that
was
where
I
struggled
and
was
there
anybody
else
who
quantified
who
hasn't
gone?
J
A
Okay,
cool
and
then
real
quickly.
If
anyone
has
like
an
anecdote,
what
did
they
learn
about
the
tc
from
quantifying
that's
kind
of
fun
and
I'll
pass
it
to
mike.
E
E
Well,
I
mean,
I
said,
not
really
no
I'd,
you
know
I
mean
it's
just
seeing
what
everybody's
saying
and
then
you
know
it's
really
help.
I
think
the
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is
putting
people
making
people
quantifiers,
who
are
fairly
new.
I
think,
is
very
helpful
in
understanding
things
overall.
So
it's
more
of
a
general
feeling
that
I'm
getting
or
information
or
learning.
E
Thank
you
libby
and
passage
to
zepty.
D
C
They
have
a
te
consilience
library
and
people
can
write
a
research
paper
about
like
a
novel,
they've
read
believe
it
has
to
be
non-fiction
or
you
know,
a
religious
topic,
at
least
that's
my
understanding
of
it,
but
that
was
really
interesting
and
there's
a
few
other
things
new
things
that
I
learned
but
they're
not
coming
to
mind
right
now
so
yeah.
C
H
Thanks
yeah,
I
was
trying
to
remember
exactly
what
it
was
because
there
was
one
thing
where
I
thought
like.
Oh
that's
nice
to
know,
but
it
was
about
somebody
jumping
in
and
organizing
something
in
the
last
minute
and
it's
helping
a
lot
of
people
out,
but
I
just
can't
remember
exactly
what
it
was,
but
it
was
cool
to
you
know,
because
I
was
there
most
of
the
time.
So
I
can't
I'm
kind
of
aware
of
most
of
the
stuff
happening.
But
then
there
was
this
thing
that
I
totally
missed.
B
A
Okay,
cool,
you
could
drop
it
in
later.
It's
all
right,
yeah!
I
was
going
through
this
stuff
and
I
was
like
wow
damn
acid
laser
does
a
lot
of
stuff
like
he
was
getting
all
this
praise
for
design
work
that
he
was
doing
and
then
work
for
managing
the
twitter
and
I
was
like
wow
he's,
actually
doing
a
lot
of
like
really
impactful
stuff,
and
I
thought
that
was
really
cool
and
it
was
really
interesting
getting
all
the
way
caught
up
to
where
we
went
to
eat
denver
and
the
taoist.
A
So
that
was
really
cool
to
like
go
through
and
like
have
those
show
up
in
the
quantifications
and
I'll
pass
it
to
p100.
A
I
think
we
did
speak
up.
If
I
forgot
you,
though,
I
see
noggin
join
the
call,
and
so
I
think
we'll
use
this
next
half
to
kind
of
jump
in
and
look
at
some
data
and
then
maybe
record
any
suggestions
or
ideas
we
come
up
with.
I
have
it
running
now,
noggin,
unless
you
feel
like
showing
it
off
the
the
rat
dashboard.
A
Okay,
cool!
Thank
you
cool,
so
this
is
the
info
here
from
round
eight,
and
so
we'll
look
at
some
of
this
stuff
in
the
spreadsheet
later,
like
the
outliers.
A
A
So
you
can
see
the
amount
of
scores
that
were
given
for
the
quant
so,
like
you
know,
score
of
one
two:
three
five,
eight
fourteen's
impossible,
so
of
course,
but
55
89
and
like
I
can't
even
get
that
I
don't
even
know
if
there
was
one
like
top
score
given
during
this
round.
So
I
guess
like
maybe
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
high
impact
contributions
from
february
everyone
was
slacking
off
at
8th,
denver
praise
award
distribution.
A
We
can
see
the
winner
was
chewie,
he's
getting
tons
of
praise.
I
can't
remember
why
what
did
joey
do
that
was?
Does
anybody
remember.
B
A
H
H
A
Interesting,
okay,
so
not
like
only
like
four
instances,
I
would
say
of
like
really
high
spread
here
and
then
some
here
down
around
the
80s,
but
we'll
look
at
that
a
little
bit
more
in
the
outlier
sheet-
and
this
is
the
praise
flow
here.
So
we
can
still
see
mount
manu
the
champion
of
dishing
praise
here.
You
know
so
he's
forwarding
all
that
praise
here
and
we
can
see
some
of
the
big
receivers
again.
A
Griff
chewie
lauren,
tam
acid
laser
and
you
can
see
the
flows
of
who
dish
praise
to
who,
in
the
flow
chart
there
christopher
dished
a
lot
of
praise
too
interesting
and
livy
as
well.
Of
course,
ratio.
Well,
that's
cool
and
for
shell
was
for,
as
was
transcribing
some
praise
as
well.
So
she's
up
there.
A
It's
just
like
the
amount
of
praise
that
was
assigned
to
each
quantifier.
Oh.
B
A
Yeah,
nice-
and
here
this
is
the
mean-
praise
score
per
quantifier,
so
you
can
see
for
each
quantifier
kind
of
like
the
median
range
of
the
where
they
were
staying
and
then
like
the
highest
scores
that
they
dished.
A
So
you
could
see
most
people
kind
of
stayed
around
the
89
mark
and
then
a
couple.
People
like
bear
myself
and
lee
dished
out
some
of
the
higher
the
highest
values.
A
A
So
you
can
see
some
of
these
people
like
like
aussie
cross
and
tam
and
usual.
They
didn't
actually
do
their
quantification,
so
you
can
see
there's
nothing
for
them.
J
A
F
A
And
then
this
is
the
rewards
received.
This
will
look
pretty
much
similar
since
I
don't
think
source
credit's
been
incorporated
in
here.
Nuggen.
A
H
Yeah
yeah,
so
basically
the
the
new
version
will
just
export
this
into
an
html.
So
you.
A
H
A
Oh
god,
cool.
Does
anyone
have
any
questions
over
this
before
we
jump
into
the
spreadsheet.
H
Just
as
an
observation
this
round,
as
you
said,
this
was
the
praise-
range-
was
smaller
like
when
you,
when
you
look
below
normally.
H
A
A
Yeah
interesting
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
praise
for
like
people
giving
talks
or
panels
or
whatever
some
of
that
top
end.
A
F
J
Is
it
possible,
when
did
we
did?
The
new
bot
was
released?
Is
that
in
change
that
the
prices
are
less
because
of
the
new
bot.
B
A
J
A
Hopefully,
we'll
see
some
better
quality
praise
once
we
start
quantifying
praise
that
was
used
with
the
new
prey
spot.
A
If
we
jump
into
the
sheet
here,
everyone
should
have
common
access
to
the
sheet.
I
dropped
it
in
the
quantifier
support
channel,
and
so
this
is
the
the
false
praise
here
and
then
on
this
other
tab.
We
have
the
outliers
and
we'll
be
able
to
see
some
of
the
biggest
spreads,
and
so
the
spread
here,
if
you
guys
aren't
familiar,
is
the
difference
between
the
lowest
score
and
the
highest
score.
A
And
so
you
can
see
like
some
of
this
top
one.
It
was
like
evolving.
The
t
academy
somebody
was
like
three
somebody
was
like
wow.
This
is
amazing,.
C
H
A
Actually,
that's
interesting
because
looks
like
bonjour
you
quantified
this.
I
was
wondering.
C
A
C
There
would
have
been
prior
praise
because
it
it's
my
understanding
that
if
it's
it
evolved
over
a
period
of
time,
so
this
individual
would
have
received
continuous
praise
throughout
different
periods
for
this
act.
So
I
you
know,
I
wasn't
quite
sure
what
amount
of
work
was
involved
in
evolving
the
te
academy,
but
you
know
in
hindsight
this
is
probably
one
where
I
should
have
gotten
more
context.
A
C
Yeah,
if
I
would
have
said,
spent
200
hours,
you
know
completing
projects
x,
y
and
z,
on
platform
x,
y
and
z,
that
you
know
then
my
mind
would
have
given
a
higher
score,
but
because
it
was
so
you
know
it
use
the
these
words
that
are
opened
up
to
interpretation.
You
know,
I
guess
my
mind
at
the
time.
A
Okay,
sure
any
questions
about
this
data,
like
you
guys,
are
feel
free
to
comb
through
it
on
your
own,
and
you
guys
should
have
common
access.
I
mean
there's.
A
Nice,
okay,
well,
we'll
get
into
the
fun
part
here,
based
on
your
quantification
experience
or
what
you've
seen
from
the
rad
dashboard
or
these
spreadsheets.
Would
you
guys
suggest
any
improvements.
B
D
Related
with
that,
I
I
just
made
me
think
like
yeah,
since
you
know
the
people
who's
quantifying,
might
be
random
and
then
the
people
who
is
giving
the
praise,
like
I
keep
coming
back
to
this
icon
thing.
So
it's
not
like
the
icon
decides
how
much
praise
it's
having,
but
at
least
the
people
who's,
giving
the
praise.
It's
like
giving
some
signaling
how
huge
the
contribution
was
so
yeah.
I
think,
like
maybe
like
giving
the
praise
with
an
icon,
it
would
give
feedback
to
the
quantifier.
I
think
that's
a
good
idea.
B
B
B
Yeah
and
then
and
then
all
the
other
values
are
like
below.
Let
me
see.
A
D
A
H
B
B
Yeah
but
then
the
score
is
like
three,
oh,
my
god,
which
is
and
then
a
dual
was
quantifying
and
then
it
I
just
got
me
as
an
example,
because
I
know
I
I'm
like
very
active
in
the
community.
But
I
wonder
what
like?
How
can
we
avoid
things
like
this
from
happening?
If,
like
just
not
even
realizing
that
someone
is
getting
a
super
low
score
for,
like
maybe
unfairly.
A
B
B
Like
was
it
like,
if
you
give
a
square
of
three,
for
example,
for
a
talk
like
what
is
your
thought
process
in
that
of?
Like?
Did
you
hate
it
or
what
is
the
you
know?
Do
we
have
some
type
of
measures
for
something
like
that
and
then
it's
hard
when
it's
not
even
contrasting
with
something
else,
because
the
other
people
didn't
score
anything
because
they
didn't
participate.
So
it
doesn't
show
in
that
in
that
metric
that
we
have
just
see
the
disagreements.
A
I
think
maybe
what
zepp
was
saying
about
quantifier
or
praise
givers
being
able
to
like
indicate
if
it
was
like
a
high
impact
or
low
impact,
and
then
that
doesn't
influence
the
score,
but
it
gives
context
to
the
quantifier
in
the
end
it's
like,
if
maybe
they
can
see
from
the
praise
giver
that,
like
they
thought
this
is
super
high
impact,
then
maybe
that
would
influence
the
scores
they
give.
On
the
other
end.
D
And
then
I
don't
know
if
we
can
implement
that,
but
what,
if,
like
you
know,
we
incentivize
to
be
careful
with
when
you're
quantifying
and
for
example,
if
you
know
like
three
people,
give
a
score
21
and
then
someone
give
it
three
like
what
about?
If
you
know
like
the
system
itself
like
give
to
the
people
that
was,
you
know,
pretty
random
quantifying
give
a
less
instant
monetary
incentive.
I
don't
know,
for
example
like
this.
Obviously
less
works
like
you
are
a
juror
and
then,
if
you,
your
response
is
different.
D
A
A
Okay
I'll
leave
like
one
or
two
more
minutes,
and
then
maybe
we
can
get
some
feedback
on
the
rad
dashboard.
B
A
No
problem
somebody
brought
up
something
about
self-praise
and
I
think
it
would
be
cool
to
have
some
sort
of
tag
in
the
ui
that
could
show
that
this
person
was
praising
themselves.
A
So
like
that
might
be
interesting
to
like
add
more
context,
because
some
people
think
that
self
praise
should
be
dismissed
or
they
get
really
confused
by
it
or,
like
somebody
just
happens
to
notice
that
somebody's
praising
themself
a
lot,
and
so
it's
like
it'd
be
cool
just
to
have
a
little
tag
there.
That
would
just
say,
like,
like
self
praise
or
something
to
give
more
context.
H
One
question:
what
are
the
instances
of
that
like
I
know,
for
for
the
comments
swirl,
it
was
like
sale.
Phrase
was
the
way
you
would
tell
how
many
hours
you've
worked.
D
A
I
mean
I'm
kind
of
shameless.
I
do
that
but
like
if
you
really
see
that,
like
you,
did
something
and
it's
like
kind
of
a
background
thing
that
maybe
you
won't
get
praised
for
it's
like
it's
cool
to
have
it
in
there
like,
like,
if
example,
like
livy,
was
like
nobody
praised
me
for
that
talk.
I
did
like
what
and
so
like
she
can
praise
herself
and
at
least
that
gets
recorded
somewhere.
D
A
C
C
I
think
I
think
it's
perfectly
fine
to
do
that,
and
I
agree
with
you
that
collecting
we
will
have
the
data
on
it,
so
we
will
be
able
to
see
if,
if
you
know,
people
giving
themselves
praise
the
aggregate
tend
to
give
a
higher
score
than
the
rest
of
the
quantifiers.
So
that's,
I
think
that's
good
data
to
have.
B
H
H
Giving
completely
random
values,
it
would
probably
show
up
in
the
in
the
mean
score
table
right
because
they
would
be
giving
like
they
would
be
all
over
the
place.
If
it's
just
says
between
you
know,
3
and
21,
or
something
maybe
it's
just
that
they
disagree
with
the
majority.
But
it's
really
hard
to
to
split
hairs
there.
What
is
legitimate
quantification
and
what
is
just
random
guessing.
C
It's
a
good
point
to
like
determine
whether
it's
truly
random
or
if
it's
just
a
product
of
ignorance
and
your
due
diligence,
if
they're
just
like
using
a
bot
that
just
assigns
random
scores
yeah,
I
think
that's
that
that's
something
we
should
solve,
but
I
I
think
these
why
discrepancies
are
a
product
of
ignorance
and
people
not
doing
their
due
diligence.
H
H
A
B
Last
thing-
and
this
is
probably
a
problem
like
not
something
so
cool
to
put
in,
but
what,
if
we
start
to
get
like
many
very
randomly
wrong
or
like
weird
final
results,
should
we
have
a
way
to
challenge
them
like
hey?
I
want
to
challenge
my
quantification
or
I
want
to
like.
Is
there
any
way
for
you
to
disagree
with
value
that
was
assigned
to
you?
Octopus
had
brought
up
this
point
a
while
ago
that
that
was
somehow
important.
A
Cool,
that's
definitely
some
good
stuff
to
chew.
On
we've
got
five
minutes
left
and
we'll
we'll
just
keep
moving
on
here,
based
on
what
you've
seen
in
the
rad
dashboard
here.
Would
anyone
like
to
make
any
suggestions,
maybe
some
data
that
would
be
cool
to
see
or
something
that
could
be
clarified
more.
A
A
D
A
Okay,
any
last
minute
comments
for
the
review
session.
J
J
A
Cool
well,
we
seem
to
get
a
lot
of
really
good
info
here,
and
so
I
guess
we'll
just
wrap
it
up
a
couple
minutes
early
thanks.
Everyone
for
joining
the
review
session,
we'll
be
opening
up
the
new
quant
tomorrow
morning
for
march
and
we'll
do
this
again
same
time
next
week.