►
From YouTube: Praise Quant 6 - 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/
B
A
Cool
yeah,
so
let's
get
this
started.
This
is
a
review
session
for
quant
six
december
2021
I'll
be
facilitating
olivia's
gonna
take
some
notes
and
we'll
start
with
intentions
and
distractions.
My
intention
is
to
facilitate
my
distraction
is
screen
fatigue
and
I
will
pass
it
to
zap.
C
D
B
My
intention
is
to
continue
learning
from
everyone's
experiences
with
once
in
my
distraction,
same
screen
fatigue
end
of
the
day
I
just
ate
a
whole
bar
of
chocolate,
not
feeling
so
good
I'll
pass
to
g
way.
A
Yeah
you
want
to
pass
it.
E
Yeah
logan.
F
Thanks
yeah
also
catching
up
taking
a
look
at
the
quant
and
it's
the
end
of
the
day.
For
me
too
so
yeah
I'll
pass
it.
I
think
everybody
went
no
bear.
I
pass
it
to
bear.
B
A
A
All
right
get
rid
of
that.
Let's
get
started
from
the
top.
I
think.
Let's
see
who
is
here,
I
think
most
of
us
were
quantifiers,
with
the
exception
of
zepp.
A
So
we'll
just
start
from
the
top
and
ask
how
comfortable
did
you
feel
with
your
quantification?
I
could
say:
mom
was
mine
was
a
breeze.
B
F
Yeah
this
week
was
also
pretty
comfortable
for
me,
like
I
think
I
got
the
hang
of
it
and
you
just
did
put
on
some
music
and
it
goes
pretty
fast
yeah.
The
only
thing
that
I
kind
of
that.
I
noticed
that
maybe
I
would
like
to
bring
up,
but
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
solution
for
that,
is
that
when,
when
you
go
through
different
people
and
and
the
same
praise
pops
up
like
somebody
who
praised
three
people
for
the
same
thing,
I
always
get
like
very
anxious.
F
If
I
don't
remember
like
okay,
am
I
giving
this
person
more
and
this
person
less?
And
it's
not
it's
not
easy
to
check
that,
and
maybe
for
the
future.
Since
the
praise
id
is
probably
the
same,
there
could
be
a
way
to
highlight
at
least
link
back
to
where
you
already
quantified
that
so
you
kind
of
remember
what
what
school
you
gave
there
and
yeah
and
duplicates
are
a
pain
in
the
ass
but
yeah.
That's
nothing
new
and
I'll.
Pass
to
that.
C
I
mean
I
didn't
quantify
but
yeah
like
the
last
time.
I
did
it
like
again,
like
I
feel
like
it's
very
smooth
and
the
more
you
do
it
actually
like.
I
was
quantified
for
a
couple
of
rooms
in
a
row.
So
every
time,
no,
no,
the
more
you
do
it
like
the
more
familiar
you
are
with
the
fibonacci
sequence.
So
yeah,
that's
good
I'll,
pass
it
back
to
your
mitch.
E
Yeah,
this
is
my
second
time
in
quantifying
and
compared
to
last
time,
it's
definitely
easier
and
also
there's
much
less
duplicate,
because
I'm
assigned
a
lot
of
people
with
a
smaller
number
of
praise
and
that
same
thing
as
if
it's
the
same
place
across
different
people.
I
hope
I
can
remember,
but
sometimes
I
don't
and
I'm
still
struggling
to
evaluate
things
like
super
emotional,
you
make
my
life
better.
That
kind
of
thing
I
want
to
give
it
a
pretty
high
score
yeah.
I
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
consensus.
A
A
I
pinned
a
folder
that
has
all
of
the
data
from
all
the
rounds,
and
so
you
can
actually
go
in
and
see
how
yourself
or
other
people
quantified
from
previous
rounds
and
so
like
if
you're
thinking
like
okay,
what
did
everyone
do
for
like
this
stuff
about,
like
like
high
vibes
and
like
emotional
support
and
stuff
like
that,
like
all
of
it
is
there?
So
if
you're
curious,
you
can
go
in
and
you
can
look
at
it.
A
Cool
great
we'll
go
to
the
duplicate
questions
I
mean.
I
know
we
kind
of
have
the
the
same
thing
going
on
here.
Duplicates
are
a
bit
difficult,
but
if
anyone
has
any
insights
they
want
to
share
I'll
just
I'll
leave
it
open.
A
A
F
Yeah,
I
think,
maybe
for
the
for
the
future.
If
we
raise
the
percentage
we
count
again.
So
it's
not
just
10,
but
if
we
do
it
like
60
or
something,
then
the
the
difference
between
counting
it
as
a
duplicate
or
as
a
new
price.
Isn't
that
high
and
since
at
the
end
of
the
day,
is
going
to
be
proportional
to
the
total.
I
think
it's
wouldn't
make
that
much
of
a
difference
in
in
the
in
the
yeah
things.
Maybe
something
like
that.
F
I
think
yeah,
because
some,
if,
if
it's
too
close
you're
kind
of
risking
to
make
it
like
very
very
little
and
other
in
another
quantifier
things
slightly
differently
and
suddenly
it's
a
lot
more
points
on
their
side
and
maybe
to
even
that
out.
Just
yeah
count
it
for
a
high
percentage
could
be
a
solution.
Just
came
to
mi
right
now,.
F
F
So
maybe,
if,
if
people
who
choose
to
to
mark
it
as
a
duplicate
count
a
bit
more,
maybe
that's
that's
a
possible
solution.
We
should
definitely
look
into
it
and
you
know,
run
it
a
couple
of
times
and
see
and
see
how
the
how
the
results
change.
But
maybe
it's
not
something.
A
F
E
E
A
G
A
Like,
for
example,
I
noticed
sam
and
pablo,
who
were
doing
the
smart
contract
stuff
got
very
few
praise,
but
the
praise
that
they
got
was
extremely
valuable
and
so
people
who
show
up
in
a
lot
of
places
and
get
lots
of
duplicate
praise,
because
it's
like
they're
doing
a
high
visibility
action
would
have
much
higher
overall
scores
than
the
people
who
are
getting
praised
less,
but
with
higher
quality
praise
or
like
higher
impact
praise.
A
Yeah,
that's
the
thing
I
noticed
is
like
they
didn't
get
praised
a
lot,
but
when
they
did
get
praised,
it
was
like
very
important
stuff
and,
like
I
just
wonder,
if,
like
people
who
are
praised
more
often
by
many
different
people
will
have
a
much
higher
score
from
upping
these
duplicate
values
versus
people
who
are
praised
very
little
or
aren't
acknowledged
very
much
but
contribute
high,
valuable
work.
F
Yeah,
on
the
other
hand,
there's
there's
a
risk
which
I
don't
know
if,
if
that's
the
case,
but
it
could
be
also
that
people
who
get
highly
specific
praise
like
if
somebody
praises,
for
example,
sam
for
making
the
bonding
curve
contract
if
that
shows
up
in
quantification
several
times.
It's
going
to
it's
yeah,
in
my
opinion,
very
probable
that
it's
going
to
be
marked
as
duplicate
and
maybe
stuff.
That
is
less
specific,
like
I
don't
know
stuff
from
the
graviton
training,
for
example.
F
A
I'd
say
I'll
I'd
say:
let's
let
let's
run
it
and
we
can
look
at
it
over
the
course
of
this
next
week,
see
what
it
changes.
A
Yeah
that
would
be
fun
cool.
Okay,
let's
move
on
here.
Were
you
able
to
find
enough
context
to
adequately
quantify
your
praise?
A
B
B
A
F
Yeah
yeah,
for
me
it
was,
it
was
the
same
iphone.
I
think
it
was
great
to
have
the
names
because
it
helped
me
yeah,
give
the
necessary
context
to
like
value
it
as
a
as
I
think
but
yeah,
because
I
was
there
and
I
know
who
did
what
I
know.
I
think
people
that
maybe
arrived
later,
don't
but
yeah.
That's
how
it
is
and
zepty.
A
E
G
B
A
B
A
Okay,
bear
100.
A
Now
here,
how
can
we
improve
praise
etiquette?
This
is
a
good
question
and
I
actually
am
hoping
to
update
the
quantifier
onboarding
post,
maybe
with
some
examples
of
like
bad
praise
or
like
weird
praise
and
like
kind
of
some
consensus
of
how
we
dealt
with
it,
just
to
give
people
some
more
reference
that
can't
join
the
calls,
and
so
how
can
we
improve
praise
etiquette?
What
do
you
think
needs
to
happen?
A
A
Olivia
had
a
great
point
of
like
when
we're
typing
praise.
We
often
type
it
the
way
that
it
was
said,
but
that's
not
really
a
great
practice,
because
when
we're
saying
praise
often
we
feel
rushed.
So
we
don't
give
a
lot
of
details,
but
when
we
write
praise
we're
not
limited
by
time
so
like
we
should
encourage
people
to
have
more
details
in
their
praise.
B
Yeah
I
was
missing
that
question
of
like.
Is
there
a
particular
praise
that
caught
your
attention
because
I
had
one
today,
there
was
one
wonka
dished
to
infinite
people,
and
then
that
became
more
and
more
funny,
as
I
would
like
pass
people
and
see
that
that
praise
was
was
being
quantified
for
everyone.
B
E
E
A
Super
interesting:
we
can
pass
it
to
noggin.
F
Thanks
yeah
thanks
for
bringing
that
up
g-way,
I
think
that's
the
really
good
point,
because
I
was
going
to
say
also
it
would
help
if
priest
was
more
specific,
but
I
think
that's
the
point
if
people
just
if
we
tell
people
to
focus
a
bit
more
on
what
they
did
to
make
us
feel
that
way,
I
think
it
doesn't
break
the
spirit
of
praise
and
still
helps
a
lot
with
quantifying
so
yeah.
A
I
I'm
just
gonna,
I'm
watching
livia
catch
up
there
I'll
pass
it
to
bear
100.
A
Yeah-
and
I
just
want
to
capture
a
couple
things
that
we
saw-
that
I
saw
bad
praise
etiquette,
so
I
hear
that
people
praising
an
emotional
response
without
indicating
the
action
that
created
it.
A
One
thing
I
noticed
was
the
quant
before
last.
One
was
people
praising
multiple
things
and
people
in
one
message.
A
And
I
ideal
is:
I
could
capture
these
into
like
a
concrete
example,
I
haven't
added
it
to
the
document
yet
so
that's
why?
Probably
you
can't
find
it
zap,
but
I'd
like
to
capture
concrete
examples
of
this
and
without
names
and
put
them
into
the
dock,
and
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
anyone
saw
of
concrete
examples
of
bad
praise,
etiquette.
B
A
Cool
anything
anything
else
you
guys
saw
for
bad
praise,
etiquette.
A
B
I
also
want
to
mention
good
praise
etiquette.
That
is,
I
saw
a
few
a
few
praises
that
were
very
descriptive
and
I
thought
in
the
beginning
that
that
would
make
me
annoyed,
like
oh,
it's
so
big
for
me
to
read,
but
it
didn't.
It
was
very
helpful
actually
to
have
like
three
lines
explaining
what
is
the
praise,
because
the
process
of
giving
the
value
became
much
more
seamless
and
easier,
even
if
it
was
a
second
more
to
read
the
praise.
A
A
Cool
all
right,
so
this
is
the
sheet
here.
This
is
just
the
whole
data
here
and
I'll
spare.
A
Looking
at
this
mess
and
we'll
jump,
we
can
jump
right
into
the
outliers
of
data
and
you
can
see
there's
still
some
big
spreads
here
and
I
was
looking
at
this
a
little
bit
before
the
call
and
a
lot
of
this
was
stuff
that
was
dished
for
pram
parties
for
debates
for
testing
smart
contracts.
Commons
upgrade
a
lot
of
stuff
like
that,
a
winning
hurdle
scholarship,
nice,
and
I
think
this
was
a
big
difference
between
people
having
context
and
people
not
having
contacts.
F
F
B
C
B
What
could
be
also
is
that
there
was
a
lot
of
praise
that
probably
in
the
community
call
people
who
were
saying
it
out
loud,
also
typed
it
in
the
praise,
chat
and
then
mount
manu
came
after
and
then
retyped
it.
So
there
was
the
exact
same
praise
coming
from
mount
manu
and
another
person.
I
dismissed
a
few
of
those.
A
Yeah
I
mean
if
we
go.
If
we
look
at
the
keyword
which
is
crushing,
we
could
see
that
it
only
happened
three
times
and
it
was
once
for
fabio,
vitor
and
pedro.
A
A
F
A
Didn't
it's
false,
so
it's
true
for
z,
way
and
true
for
anti
true
is,
is
they
did
dismiss
it.
A
F
Yeah
actually
ask
christopher
if
they,
if
they
did
anything
like
that
on
the
analysis
side,
we
don't-
and
I
think
no
because
if
you
look
at
exactly
that,
if
you
go
to
the
score
to
that
to
that
to
this
place,
where
we
are
right
now,
so
it's
34
and
89,
and
if
you
go
to
the
to
the
right
to
the
to
the
score,
I
think
it's
get
yeah
it's
getting
a
score
of
61
yeah
61..
F
A
F
A
Yeah,
so
you
can
see
like
these
top
ones
144-
and
this
is
this
can
be.
This
is
actually
misleading,
because
this,
this
score
of
zero,
was
actually
a
duplicate.
A
A
F
It
was
if
it
got
duplicated
to
zero.
It
was
eight
tops
because
yeah.
A
A
A
Yeah
again
engaging
in
the
forum
innovator.
E
Yeah,
it's
another
table
output.
I
don't.
F
A
E
E
Just
bring
this
to
your
attention.
A
The
score
it
doesn't
appear
on
here
when
you
mark
it
as
a
duplicate.
It
shows
up
as
a
zero
on
this
spreadsheet,
but
in
the
actual
calculation,
it's
being
marked
as
ten
percent
of
the
value
of
the
original
phrase.
E
B
A
Interesting
you
found
it.
Do
you
want
to
comment
on
it.
E
Oh,
I
need
to
share
my
whole
screen.
E
E
Yeah,
so
that's
the
distribution.
We
got
and
still
looks
pretty
good
people
giving
five
and
four
by
three
at
night
and
in
total,
there's,
maybe
10
of
the
top
scores
and
here's
the
reward
reception,
the
you
win
again
with
the
chris
and
also
being
qualifier
reward.
The
two
adds
up
followed
by
chewie.
Let's
pray,
send
the
reward
board
and
grief.
E
F
That
is
that's
that's
just
that
the
reward
board
doesn't
isn't
linked
to
to
the
discord
usernames.
So
once
the
input
file
does
that
it
will
integrate
with
the
rest
yeah
or
it's
for
the
case,
where
the
reward
has
a
different
address
than
the
price
address.
Sorry,
that's
what
it
must.
A
E
A
E
E
Okay-
and
here
are
outliers
and
again
we
see
some
big
spread
of
114
15
14.,
but
that's
better
looked
at
the
by
the
table
that
which
just
shared-
and
here
is
the
look
at
the
quantifier.
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
Okay,
so,
like
let's
say
this,
this
thing
this
person
thinks
it's
a
duplicate
of
the
message
of
for
recording
all
the
calls
and
the
original
messages
for
recording
and
uploading
all
the
calls
behind
the
scene
and
some
people
think
it's
not
it's
different
than
this
one
and
some
people
think
it's
the
same.
E
Yeah
after
you
run
the
main
script,
I
still
have
some
bug
it's,
but
it's
only
including
three
quantifiers,
because
the
test
data
was
only
three
quantifiers,
but
now
we're
gonna
stick
to
four
quantifiers
right
yeah.
So
we
I
need
to
fix
that,
but
yeah.
So
here
you
can
see
as
being
a
spot
on
lead
for
reward
system.
Work
group
consistent,
blah
blah.
E
E
E
E
Show
us
okay,
one
more
thing
to
show
is
for
dismiss
there's
five
percent
people
that
don't
agree
with.
Do
we
dismiss
something
or
not
so
that's
better
than
duplicate,
so
people
have
more
agreement
on
dismissal
than
duplicate
and
here's
a
table
of
all
the
here.
We
have
a
column
of
our
people,
agree
on
the
dismissal.
E
So,
starting
with
all
this
of
not
agreed
dismissals,
I
haven't
figured
out
a
good
way
how
to
look
at
this
data
so
not
right.
Now
we
can
only
look
at
it
one
by
one.
E
A
B
E
A
Cool
well,
I
can
I'll
make
a
softball
on
the
channel.
E
It's
hard
to
there
are
two
kinds
of
dismiss.
One
is
the
message
itself
is
wrong
or
just
incomplete.
The
other
is
because
it's
a
duplicate
of
the
same
person
doing
the
same
thing,
pressing
the
same
thing
twice
so
right
now.
We
cannot
really
automatically
distinguish
these
two
cases,
but
if
you
can
mark
duplicate
for
the
same
person,
giving
same
same
message
and
that's
like
a
different
kind
of
duplicate,
if
people
can
mark
that,
then
we
can
easily
identify
these
two
scenarios.
A
Cool
we're
almost
at
the
top
of
the
hour,
so
I
would
like
to
export
these
things
when
they're
done
and
add
them
to
our
folder.
So
people
can
look
at
this
anytime.
They
want
and
thank
you
both
very
much
thank
you
t-way
for
presenting
that
and
nugget,
and
both
of
you
for
the
work
that
you've
done
on
the
rad
dashboard.
A
C
I
would
love
like
if
this
review
sessions,
like
maybe
not
now
but
evolving,
at
something
like
okay.
This
is
the
analysis.
This
is
conclusions
and
maybe
a
forum
post
with
conclusions
or
something
like
so
the
community
is
aware
like
what's
going
on
and
and
what
are
the
next
things
to
implement
and
yeah,
like
just
awareness
and.
E
Transparency
yeah,
I
was
thinking
the
same.
So
what's
the
goal
of
doing
this
review,
one
big
part
is
education
for
both
people,
people
giving
praise
praise
ethics
and
also
for
quantifiers.
So
we
should
like
crit
crystallize
some
lessons
for
that
and
then
another
goal
is
for
improvement
of
the
praise
system
and
the
red
dashboard.
B
A
A
Yeah
wow
any
other
last
minute
thoughts,
while
we're
at
the
top
of
the
hour.
A
If
you
think
of
anything
else,
this
document
should
be
editable
by
anybody,
so
go
ahead
and
drop
some
comments
in
there.
Livy
has
been
doing
a
great
job
of
highlighting
some
key
things
that
we
can
pass
on
to
development
for
issues
and
yeah.
Go
ahead,
review
the
data
in
there
and
leave
some
more
comments.
If
you
have
any.