It's simply beautiful how earth's creatures, specifically bees, can make the most wonderful structures. Take, for instance, the honeycomb. It's even more amazing when such a structure produces something that provides many uses and benefits for everyday life. Enter beeswax.
This amazing substance comes from worker honeybees — the females — and the honeycomb, and it's commonly used for lowering cholesterol and relieving pain. It's also used for swelling and inflammation, and of course, it helps produce different forms of raw honey, including the highly beneficial Manuka honey.
This shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as another bee byproduct — bee pollen — is so beneficial. So what else can beeswax do? Let's take a look at this natural product's biggest benefits and uses.
Beeswax is an amazing way to moisturize the skin and is commonly found in skin care products and cosmetics, such as Burt's Bees. It can help protect and repair rough, dry or chapped skin because it has the ability to lock in moisture.
The natural moisturizers in beeswax make it the perfect lip balm. If you suffer from cracked or chapped lips, topical applications of beeswax and a few other ingredients can provide some much-needed relief. (7) It's easy to make your own lip balm by combining it with coconut oil, honey, vitamin E oil, and your favorite essential oils, such as orange, peppermint, lavender or lemon.
Instead, opt for these natural candles, which work well as stress relievers. (12) If making your own candles, you want to check labels to make sure you get organic beeswax since it's free of toxins. If you're buying already-made beeswax candles, choosing 100 percent beeswax candles with cotton wicks is definitely the best choice.
In addition to the above benefits and uses, there are some additional uses for honey and beeswax.
The three major beeswax products are yellow beeswax, white beeswax and beeswax absolute. Yellow beeswax is the crude product obtained from the honeycomb. White beeswax is made from yellow beeswax by bleaching, and beeswax absolute is made by treating yellow beeswax with alcohol.
If you are using it for food preparation, the easiest way to work with it is to put it in the freezer for a few hours and then grate it. In many foods and beverages, white beeswax and beeswax absolute are used as stiffening agents. In manufacturing, yellow and white beeswax are used as thickeners, emulsifiers and stiffening agents in cosmetics. However, it's most commonly used to make the salves and moisturizers that are used externally.
Beeswax absolute is typically used as a fragrance in soaps and perfumes. White beeswax and beeswax absolute are also used to polish pills. The yellow beeswax is the form we love the most because of its natural state. Regardless, make sure you check the ingredients and directions prior to using any form of it, and if you have an allergy that may be related, don't use it.
First, let's think about just how important bees are to our health and overall existence.Did you know that we rely on bees for nearly a third of our entire food supply? We also greatly benefit from all the fibers, spices and medicines that come from the plants they pollinate. This produces a great appreciation for our bees, and the list continues.
Bees affect more than just our food and medicines. Honeybees are connected with several critical issues for human and environmental health, including biodiversity, food security, nutrition and sustainable land use. A world without bees would not be possible since the health of the honeybee is a critical step to sustainable agriculture.
Another is that the wax would start to melt if a woman sat too close to the fire, and their companions would have to tell them to "mind their own beeswax," which was dripping off their chins. As interesting as these stories may seem, they were on to something with the its use as a natural way to heal the skin.
However, the origin of this story is said to be a myth. It seems the story started circulating by a chain email called "Little History Lesson," which made the rounds in 2000. The first record of "mind your own beeswax" actually appears in 1929 in a children's book, with additional early records following in 1934 and 1939, quite a few years after women were supposedly slathering wax on their faces and coining popular expressions about it.
As far as the science goes, beeswax is the foundation of the beehive. Honeybees build their comb from beeswax and fill the geometric shape of the hexagonal cells with honey and brood. Worker bees then secrete wax from eight special wax glands on the underside of their abdomens.
If you have any concerns with allergies, beeswax may present problems for you. It's important to check with your doctor prior to using it in any form, especially if you're pregnant, breast-feeding or taking medications.
Beeswax treats diaper dermatitis, psoriasis and eczema; moisturizes skin; protects the liver; lowers cholesterol levels; relieves pain and possesses anti-inflammatory properties; clears acne; heals dry, cracked lips; reduces stretch marks; treats jock itch and fungal skin infections; and relieves stress and promotes relaxation.
It can also be used for hair, food preparation, fragrance in soaps and perfume, and to polish pills. Evidence even shows it may have been used as a tooth filling.
We rely on bees for nearly a third of our entire food supply. We also greatly benefit from all the fibers, spices and medicines that come from the plants they pollinate.


Re-Vision is the leading global provider of mobile self-scanning solutions, accounting for an overall market share approaching 50%, with a proven track record of delivering business value to the world's top 5 food retailers. Benefitting from over 10 years of experience and built around retail best practices, our My-Scan Omni-Channel platform is implemented in different supermarket and hypermarket environments in over 30 countries all over the world.
The reason why the world's largest retail organizations keep investing in our mature solutions portfolio is because they see immediate benefits such as uplift in basket size, increase in store revenue, improved customer loyalty. The Re-Vision solutions support the retailer's omni-channel strategy by making the relationship with their shoppers more personal, more loyal and more connected. This is exactly what the retail world is looking for today – to link with their shoppers via all kinds of devices and bring the online shopping experience into the actual store.


text:
Amorphophallus titanum flowers in Auckland
An Amorphophallus titanum other wise known as the "corpse flower" has flowered for the first time ever in New Zealand, in the Auckland Winter garden. The giant flower smells like rotting flesh to attract insects for pollination. The Amorphophallus titanum has been growing in the Auckland Winter Garden for about seven years. It originates in the rainforests of Sumartra, where it's inflorescence can reach over three metres in height. Also known as the titan arum because it has the largest unbranched inflorescence in the world. After the flower dies back, a single leaf will normally grow from the underground corm, that can reach the size of a small tree. The plant attracted a substantial number of visitors on a sunny Sunday afternoon, that made a queue that took about a half hours shuffle to see the flower.
Poisonous Castor Oil plant
The Castor Oil plant ( Ricinus communis ) can potentially kill an adult human after consuming just four to eight seeds. All parts of the plant are poisonous, but the seed have the highest concentration of poison. It contains some of the strongest toxins in the plant kingdom: the alkaloid ricinin as well as the toxalbumin ricin. These are more toxic than cyanide. It causes a painful death. Symptoms typically occur between 2-4 hours but can be delayed up to 36 hours. Symptoms include a burning sensation in the mouth, nausea, vomiting, stomach ache, diarrhea, headache, cold sweat, fever, disorientation, sleepiness, hypotension, tachycardia ( abnormally fast resting heart rate ), shortage of breath and seizures, followed by collapse and death. This is the plant that castor oil is made from. The toxins can be extracted through a complicated process, making commercially cold pressed castor oil safe to humans in normal doses, both internally and externally.
The castor oil plant is a fast growing perennial shrub that can reach around 12 metres tall. With glossy large palm-shaped leaves with 7-9 coarsely toothed segments, cluster-like blossoms and prickly fruits, that contain large oval, shiny, bean like poisonous seeds.
If you've got this plant in your garden I recommend removing it, by wearing rubber gloves, and chopping it down and digging out the roots, because as well as being poisonous it spreads to become a weed.
If you've got this in your garden I would recommend removing it.
Poisonous Death Cap Mushrooms
Don't eat mushrooms with white gills on the underside of the cap! It could be Amanita phalloides " Death Cap mushroom." I've been seeing them in gardens beds and on lawns recently in suburban Auckland gardens. It's responsible for the majority of fatal mushroom poisonings worldwide. Eating just half of the cap is enough to kill a person. It's best to not even touch this mushroom. The reason people eat it is because it looks alot like the edible field mushroom, which initially has pink gills that turn brown then dark brown as it ages. So if you're not sure if it's safe, then it's not safe to eat wild mushrooms. If you've got children it's a good idea to warn them not to touch wild mushrooms, because they are attractive to curious children, when they see a white cap popping up in the lawn or garden.
Don't eat these Death Cap mushrooms!
A younger Death Cap mushroom
Gardening NZ
Gardening NZ, Gardening In New Zealand.
Gardening NZ.Com is here to provide New Zealand gardeners, with useful information on gardening in New Zealand related subjects.
Interestingly gardening is the the second most popular physical activity in New Zealand, according to Active NZ Survey in the 2007-8 year. It's second to walking. The top ten physical activities in order are: Walking, gardening, swimming, equipment based exercise, cycling, fishing, jogging/running, dance, golf and tramping.
The plan for this Gardening NZ website is to create a useful guide to help a range of gardeners, from beginners through to gardeners interested in more specialised subjects. This will provide visitors with a useful and comprehensive resource to help create a greener and higher quality environment for humans and our native flora and fauna to enjoy. While being aware that introduced plant species, that in many cases have useful qualities such as pleasant flowers, or are hardy and quick growing, may have a propensity to become rampant invasive weeds, if allowed to escape the confines of cultivated gardens.
New Zealand's growing conditions.
New Zealand's climate and topography create a wide range of conditions, allowing a broad range of plants to be grown here. Our climate is considered to be sub-tropical in the far north, ranging to the far south, where it is considered to be cool temperate, with severe alpine conditions in the mountains. The mountain ranges that extend the length of New Zealand, create a barrier for the prevailing westerly winds, that divides the country into distinctly different climatic regions.
The rainfall ranges between 600 and 1600mm per year, with a considerable difference occurring between the West and East Coast of the South Island, where the annual rainfall on the west coast is between 4 to 10 metres, while in Canterbury there is between 0.5 to 0.75 metres per year. The two ares are only about 100km apart!
The soil in New Zealand also varies over a wide range of types including, clay, the finest particle size through silt loam, that have a predominantly medium size soils particles, to coarser particle sized sandy coastal and alluvial soils. There's also the volcanic soils with large particle size, and peat based soils with a high organic content that tend to be acidic.
All these variants allow a wide range of plants and gardening specialties to be cultivated by New Zealand horticulturalists. Combined with the high educational standards, that our universities, polytechnics, and libraries provide, we have all the ingredients for some of the best gardens in the world.
This website is currently a work in progress, so I hope you will return to see it develop over time. If you want to, make a contribution, then contact us.
Hamilton Gardens – Italian Renaissance garden
Go to NZ Gardening Calendar From Gardening NZ.
Go to Gardening Calendar NZ July From Gardening NZ.
December NZ Gardening Guide
January NZ Gardening Advice
Community Gardens NZ
The Rose of Jericho
The One Straw Revolution by Masanobu Fukuoka
How Trees Get Water To Their Top Leaves
Time Lapse Red Rose Blooming
Seed Freedom
Trees communicate with each other!
Legionnaires Disease Health Warning
All Good Landscapes | Click Here For Garden Maintenance On The North Shore Of Auckland
Landscaping Gardening Ideas| NZ Auckland | Real Estate NZ
Copyright © GardeningNZ.Com All Rights Reserved.
Designed by Eye Media.NZ.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Son of a Bench: The Risks of Starting Your Starters
With starters this good, who needs a bench?!
So, Charlie's got a clubhouse full of Brett Favres, but the difference is, they're not pompous hayseeds. They'll sit when he tells him to sit, they just don't want to and he doesn't really want them too, either. Shane will give you a bit of a problem, yeah, when he flashes you those crazy Hawaiian eyes, but he'll be obedient.
When you've got five guys that want to play and are able to play and are able to play exceptionally well… There's plenty of teams that are missing just one of those factors and it results in massive implosions across the board. I hate to bring up the Mets again, but the Mets suck. I was going to mention that today anyway. At least now it's somewhat relevant.
Yes, Chase especially plays too much. That's why he's worn down by the later months of the season, but think how that exchange must go.
Charlie: "You, uh, how about you take a breather today, Chase?"
Chase: "I feel great." *hits home run*.
Charlie: *Watching home run* "Uh huh… well, you've played in 117,000 straight games. Everybody needs a break now and then."
Chase: *Hits four home runs at once somehow* "Chuck, if you want me to sit, I'll sit."
Charlie: "I…" *Chase hits line drive that explodes Juan Castro's knee cap into bone chips* "All right, see you out there."
Sitting one of these core players is like promising to quit smoking tomorrow. You know you should, but damn it… look at them play. And what didn't help was the underperforming bench in 2009; which was like telling your kids you'd decided to quit smoking for them, only to have them blow a sweet, sweet Nicotine cloud back in your face.
Greg Dobbs had a dead rat of a 2009 in the same vein as Cole and Brad. Greg came off the bench in '07 to play first for an injured Ryan Howard, and when you look at the two of them… "I'm sorry, sir, we're all out of the porterhouse, but we can offer you this complimentary bread basket."
But the bread was the most slamming bread ever, and more then made up for it while somebody slaughtered up another cow.
What I'm saying is, Dobbs was the best PH in baseball. After playing in only 23 games in Seattle in 2006, Charlie had him show up in 142 games for the Phils in '07, in which he hit .272, and 128 games in 2008, batting .303. Last year he didn't even make it into 100 games (97) and cashed in with a childlike .247 BA.
Matt Stairs also failed to do the thing we needed him to do as well, which was "hit home runs on command." Not an envious team role, but you put the parts where they fit. So when you consistently drop guys in the spots where they flourished the previous year, only to see them falter and stumble, well, damn. You tend to lean on them a little less.
So there was a reason Ruben Amaro dumped the bench out this year and refilled it with guys who could do similar jobs without being the exact same weathered players, though yeah, he did keep Dobbs around. Which I think is good; the guy's only 31, his talent's still in there. I'm way more confident with Juan Castro playing in Chase or Jimmy's stead, at least, way more than I was with Bruntlett, and Ross Gload as a power hitter off the bench will be a handy bit of ignition at some point.
The temptation to use the best you've got everyday is probably monumental for Charlie, a manager who just wants to win. But they've got to trust what Ruben gave them on the 2010 bench, at first, anyway, and realize that staying on the ball through the season and post-season is more important than catching fire in July only to burn out in September.
Also, for god's sake, will somebody please smother the Orioles with a pillow? This is getting hard to watch.


text:
\section{Introduction}
Despite the widespread adoption of remote education, physical hands-on training and instruction still remain difficult to effectively teach or learn in a remote setting.
In hands-on training, such as physical therapy training, mechanical task instruction, cooking lessons, and sports coaching, the physical demonstrations are vital to effective training, but such physical demonstrations cannot be captured well with a simple 2D video call like Zoom~\cite{hawkins2016limitations}.
To address this, recent research has explored mixed reality (MR) interfaces for live instruction (e.g., \textit{Loki}~\cite{thoravi2019loki}) or recorded video tutorials (e.g., \textit{ProcessAR}~\cite{chidambaram2021processar}, \textit{AdapTutAR}~\cite{huang2021adaptutar}) for hands-on training and education.
These mixed reality interfaces show great promise to improve the sense of co-presence and the ability to demonstrate such lessons in a more spatial and immersive manner~\cite{cao2020exploratory}.

However, this approach \textit{does not scale well for classrooms}, where dozens of students learn by observing an instructor's hands-on demonstration.
In such a case, every student needs to wear a MR headset, which incurs a large financial cost as well as a cumbersome preparation and calibration process that significantly hinders practical use in actual classrooms.
Moreover, even if the headset becomes cheap, small, and easily accessible, the \textit{virtual} demonstration is still far from the actual \textit{physical} demonstration, especially when the embodied interactions matter~\cite{ferdous2019s}.
For example, we learn from our formative study that the lack of physical demonstrations and human touch results in a poor learning experience in certain domains like physiotherapy training.
Because of that, many kinds of classroom-scale hands-on training still need to rely on physical and co-located instruction~\cite{hoang2017augmented}, as it is difficult to deliver an adequate educational experience in remote settings.

In this paper, we propose a novel approach to remote classroom instruction that uses a \textit{real human} to physically demonstrate a remote instructor's lesson for classroom-scale hands-on training. By equipping a human surrogate with an MR headset and a remote instructor with a head-worn hand-tracking device (Leap Motion), the remote instructor's hands can be overlayed within the surrogate's MR point-of-view, enabling the surrogate to synchronize their real hands with the remote instructor's virtual hands via MR gestural guidance and verbal instruction. This enables the remote instructor to \textit{physically} demonstrate hands-on lessons via the guided human surrogate at classroom scale. Additionally, we modify the surrogate's MR headset with a face-mounted 2D tablet display to display the remote instructor's face on top of the surrogate's face in order to enhance the sense of co-presence of in-person students with the remote instructor.

Our approach takes inspiration from the existing human-surrogate telepresence (e.g., \textit{ChameleonMask}~\cite{misawa2015chameleonmask}), but, we offer two novelties built on top of it:
\subsub{1) Teleoperate, not telepresence} First, we leverage mixed reality virtual hand overlays to \textit{teleoperate} a human surrogate. In contrast to the existing voice-based~\cite{misawa2015chameleonmask, yamada2022and} or 2D finger pointing-based navigation~\cite{misawa2015wearing, misawa2016touching}, 3D hand gestural guidance enables more precise synchronized body motion, as if the remote instructor is teleoperating the local surrogate.
\subsub{2) Re-purpose the local user/surrogate as a classroom instructor} Second, we explore and evaluate the use of the local user as a classroom instructor for hands-on training. With this, our approach can be used not only for one-on-one training (navigating a local surrogate through MR) but more importantly for scalable hands-on/physical demonstrations in classrooms of co-located students (i.e. letting other students observe the hands-on and physical instructions or lesson given by a remote instructor by watching the co-located and remotely synchronized/teleoperated surrogate).
To demonstrate this concept, we develop ChameleonControl{} system, which leverages a LeapMotion for the remote instructor's hand tracking and a custom MR headset based on Meta Quest 2, Zed Mini camera, and iPad for the local surrogate user.

To evaluate our system, we conducted two user studies evaluating the student audience, co-located surrogate, and remote instructor's experiences with ChameleonControl{} as compared to other remote teaching methods (e.g., Zoom) and a final third user study to evaluate ChameleonControl{} in other application domains, such as mechanical assembly, sign language, and cooking lessons.
From our study, we found that our approach is effective for teaching and learning hands-on training in various application domains.
Based on the findings, we discuss the ethics of using human surrogates, the uncanny valley, and how we can generalize this concept for the future of real-human teleoperation.

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/overview.png}
\caption{A perspective overview of ChameleonControl{}. The remote instructor views the surrogate's Point-of-View and guides them using hand gestures (left) while the local surrogate synchronizes for the student audience (right).}
\label{fig:overview}
\Description{This image consists of a left and right section. On the left is a real image of a remote physiotherapy instructor's POV watching the human-surrogate's streamed POV on a desktop monitor. On the right is an image showing 5 real massage therapy students gathered watching the human surrogate perform the lesson, in this case a chair massage lesson on a non-student volunteer participant, while equipping the ChameleonControl custom HMD.}
\end{figure*}

Finally, our contributions are the following:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The concept of real-human teleoperation by combining human-surrogate telepresence and mixed reality gestural guidance.

\item ChameleonControl{}, a system that enables remote and scalable teaching/instruction for hands-on training in classrooms, with design decisions and our motivation informed by our formative study.

\item Three user studies to measure the effectiveness of our approach in various hands-on training scenarios and from each user's perspective (instructor, surrogate, and student audience).

\end{enumerate}

\section{Related Work}

\subsection{Mixed Reality for Hands-on Training}
Mixed reality provides an effective means for hands-on training for physical tasks~\cite{wang2021ar, baroroh2021systematic}, such as mechanical inspection (e.g., \textit{ARMAR}~\cite{henderson2007augmented}), machine task (e.g., \textit{AdapTutAR}~\cite{huang2021adaptutar}, \textit{MobileTutAR}~\cite{cao2022mobiletutar},  \textit{ProcessAR}~\cite{chidambaram2021processar}), assembly task (e.g., \textit{SHARIDEAS}~\cite{wang2021sharideas}, \textit{Teach Me How}~\cite{funk2018teach}), exercise instruction (e.g., \textit{My Tai Chi Coaches}~\cite{han2017my}), and music lessons (e.g., \textit{Loki}~\cite{thoravi2019loki}).
In fact, Cao et al.~\cite{cao2020exploratory} show that the human avatar in these tutorials significantly improves the spatial and body-coordinated interaction than the no-avatar condition.

However, there are still some challenges and limitations in MR hands-on training.
First, HMD-based approaches are still difficult to seamlessly integrate into the physical world.
For example, Funk et al.~\cite{funk2016interactive} reveals that projection mapping enables faster task completion time and less cognitive load than HMDs in block assembly tasks, which indicates that the low level of integration of HMDs significantly diminishes the effectiveness of instruction.
Second, it is difficult to apply in classroom settings due to the scalability problem.
In fact, most of the existing works focus on \textit{one-on-one} instruction~\cite{thoravi2019loki,chidambaram2021processar,cao2020exploratory}, but hands-on demonstrations are also important for \textit{one-to-many} scenarios like physiotherapy classrooms~\cite{ferdous2019s}.
Existing works for classroom hands-on education either focus on projection mapping in co-located settings (e.g., \textit{Augmented Studio}~\cite{hoang2017augmented}, \textit{HoloBoard}~\cite{gong2021holoboard}, \textit{HOBIT}~\cite{furio2017hobit}) or fully virtual environments in VR/AR for remote instruction (e.g., \textit{XRStudio}~\cite{nebeling2021xrstudio}, \textit{AR/VR for Liver Anatomy Education}~\cite{schott2021vr}, \textit{RealityTalk}~\cite{liao2022realitytalk}).
We address this by enabling remote hands-on instruction for classroom settings by exploring real-human teleoperation.

\subsection{Telepresence}

\subsubsection{Video-based Telepresence}
Video-based telepresence has been studied for decades~\cite{ishii1992clearboard, gauglitz2014touch}.
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, video-based telepresence (e.g., Zoom, Microsoft Teams) has become almost ubiquitous.
However, these screen-based telepresence systems are still limited for hands-on instruction due to the lack of spatial and embodied interactions~\cite{hawkins2016limitations}.

\subsubsection{Virtual Telepresence}
By leveraging the recent advances of AR/VR devices, many works have explored virtual telepresence through 3D teleportation (e.g., \textit{Holoportation}~\cite{orts2016holoportation}, \textit{Virtual Makerspaces}~\cite{radu2021virtual}), avatars (e.g., \textit{CollaboVR}~\cite{he2020collabovr}, \textit{Mini-Me}~\cite{piumsomboon2018mini}, \textit{Loki}~\cite{thoravi2019loki}), and projected images (e.g., \textit{Room2Room}~\cite{pejsa2016room2room}).
These approaches allow more immersive remote collaboration, as the virtual hand and body representation can provide a significantly stronger sense of co-presence than without it~\cite{bai2020user,cao2020exploratory}.
These virtual telepresence systems can be also used for remote instruction of physical tasks (e.g., \textit{Loki}~\cite{thoravi2019loki}, \textit{CollabAR}~\cite{villanueva2022colabar}, \textit{ARTEMIS}~\cite{gasques2021artemis}).
However, virtual telepresence lacks physical embodiment, which limits the ability to collaborate through physical objects or bodies~\cite{leithinger2014physical, rae2014bodies}.

\subsubsection{Robotic Telepresence}
HCI researchers have also explored \textit{physical telepresence}~\cite{leithinger2014physical}, as opposed to virtual telepresence by leveraging robotic telepresence (e.g., \textit{TELESAR V}~\cite{fernando2012design}, \textit{MeBot}~\cite{adalgeirsson2010mebot}, \textit{Telenoid}~\cite{ogawa2011exploring}, \textit{You as a Puppet}~\cite{sakashita2017you}, \textit{GestureMan}~\cite{kuzuoka2000gestureman}, \textit{Geminoid}~\cite{sakamoto2007android}) or actuated tangible interfaces (e.g., \textit{TRANSFORM}~\cite{leithinger2014physical}).
Prior work has shown that the physical actions of these robots, such as movement~\cite{nakanishi2011zoom}, mobility~\cite{rae2014bodies, lee2011now} and gestures~\cite{adalgeirsson2010mebot} can greatly improve engagement and social interactions.
Such robotic telepresence is also used in the context of education (e.g., \textit{RobotAR}~\cite{villanueva2021robotar}, \textit{ASTEROIDS}~\cite{li2022asteroids}). However, these robots mimic human appearance and motion very poorly.
While some works like \textit{VROOM}~\cite{jones2020vroom, jones2021belonging} or \textit{LiveMask}~\cite{misawa2012livemask} can augment the robot's appearance through \textit{``virtual skins''} of humans, it can only mimic visual aspects but not physical embodied interaction.
The works like \textit{Parallel Ping-Pong} ~\cite{takada2022parallel} demonstrate a high degree of freedom to mimic a remote user's motion, but it is still very difficult to simulate a complex embodied interaction, which is a requirement of most hands-on training such as mechanical tasks or physical therapy training.

\subsubsection{Human-Based Telepresence}
To address this, human-based telepresence has been explored as an alternative approach.
Human-based telepresence was originally developed as an idea of using a remote user as a mobile camera to experience the same interaction remotely (e.g., \textit{Tele-Actor}~\cite{goldberg2002collaborative}, \textit{TEROOS}~\cite{kashiwabara2012teroos}, \textit{JackIn Head}~\cite{kasahara2015jackin}, \textit{Shopping Together}~\cite{cai2018shopping}, \textit{Go Together}~\cite{cai2019go}).
Going beyond that, researchers started exploring the idea of real human telepresence by showing the remote user's faces on top of the local actor~\cite{misawa2015wearing}.
Most closely related to our work, \textit{ChameleonMask}~\cite{misawa2015chameleonmask} uses a human surrogate for human-based telepresence, which can be used for various applications such as shopping~\cite{misawa2015wearing} and
theater performance~\cite{tholander2021design}.
In terms of controlling the local user, however, these works only leverage voice-based~\cite{misawa2015chameleonmask} or finger-pointer-based commands~\cite{misawa2016touching, misawa2015wearing}, and no prior work, to the best of our knowledge, has investigated
the immersive gestural guidance, which enables scalable remote instruction for hands-on and physical education.

\subsection{Visual Cues for Remote Guidance}
Many researchers have investigated the use of visual communication cues to guide remote users for spatial and physical tasks~\cite{fussell2000coordination, fussell2003effects}.
These communication cues can take various forms, such as sketches~\cite{gauglitz2014world, gauglitz2014touch, jalaliniya2014wearable, huang2019sharing, teo2019investigating, gao2020user}, pointers~\cite{lee2020enhancing, kim2020use}, gaze~\cite{gupta2016you, higuch2016can}, hands~\cite{kuzuoka1994gesturecam, huang2018augmented}, and combinations of the above~\cite{kim2019evaluating, kim2020combination, higuch2016can, chen2013semarbeta}.
For example, sketch-based visual cues are often used for a spatial annotation for real-time remote guidance (e.g., \textit{TransceiVR}~\cite{thoravi2020transceivr}, \textit{SEMarbeta}~\cite{chen2013semarbeta}).
Alternatively, pointer or gaze cues are used to show where the remote user should look at in task instruction (e.g., \textit{AR Tips}~\cite{lee2020enhancing}, \textit{Do You See What I See}~\cite{gupta2016you}, \textit{Can Eye Help You}~\cite{higuch2016can}).
Different modalities such as vibro-tactile feedback (e.g., \textit{HapticPointer}~\cite{matsuda2020hapticpointer}) or electrical muscle simulation (e.g., \textit{BioSync}~\cite{nishida2017biosync}, \textit{Paralogue}~\cite{hanagata2018paralogue}) have also been explored as an implicit guide.
One of the most common visual communication cues is hand gestures (e.g., \textit{Augmented 3D Hands}~\cite{huang2018augmented},  \textit{GestureCam}~\cite{kuzuoka1994gesturecam}, \textit{RemoteFusion}~\cite{adcock2013remotefusion}, \textit{Turn It This Way}~\cite{kirk2007turn}, \textit{MirrorTablet}~\cite{le2017mirrortablet}, \textit{Imitative Collaboration}~\cite{zhang2022imitative}).
Similar to our work, prior works use virtual hands for remote guidance shown in MR headset~\cite{kim2019evaluating, teo2018hand} to navigate novice users for various physical tasks, such as block assembly~\cite{zhang2022real}, origami~\cite{kim2019evaluating, kim2020combination}, and mechanical tasks~\cite{oyama2021augmented, oyama2021integrating}.
Wang et al.~\cite{wang2022evaluating} further investigate the use of gestural cues for one-to-many remote collaboration.
While this MR-based gestural guidance itself is not new, our novelty lies in the first combination of these gestural visual cues with the human-surrogate telepresence to achieve the real-human teleoperation concept for scalable remote instruction for hands-on classrooms, which has never been explored nor evaluated in the literature.

\section{ChameleonControl{}}

\subsection{Overview}
This section introduces ChameleonControl{}, a system that enables scalable remote instruction for physical, hands-on, and spatial lessons in classrooms by using teleoperated real-human surrogates.

ChameleonControl{} streams a first-person point-of-view at low latency (30-40ms) video passthrough from the local surrogate's stereoscopic camera (ZED Mini) to both the local surrogate's equipped custom HMD and a remote user's desktop. Both the local surrogate's custom HMD and stereoscopic camera are connected to a PC via USB-C/USB-A cables. The video feed is streamed stereoscopically to the local surrogate's custom HMD enabling them to naturally and immersively interact with their physical environment. The video passthrough is streamed monoscopically to a remote user's desktop, enabling the remote user to view the scene from the local surrogate's 2D first-person point-of-view.

On the other hand, ChameleonControl{} uses a local surrogate not only as a camera streamer but also as a surrogate of the remote user, by displaying the facial expressions of the remote user as a \textit{``mask''} of a local surrogate.
All in all, the local surrogate's custom HMD consists of: 1) Meta Quest 2 VR headset, 2) iPad display mounted to the front of the headset, 3) ZED Mini stereoscopic camera mounted to the front of the iPad. The remote user equips a simple head strap with a LeapMotion attached, connected via wire to a PC.
In addition, ChameleonControl{} also displays a remote user's hands in a local surrogate's mixed reality first-person camera point of view (POV), so that the remote user can guide how the local surrogate should act and behave via navigated hand gestures.

By synchronizing both facial expressions and bodily motion, ChameleonControl{} creates an illusion, as if the remote user is \textit{teleoperating} a local surrogate, whose body motion is visible to a co-located audience.
Figure~\ref{fig:teaser} illustrates the overall system design.

\subsection{Formative Study and Design Rationale}
The design of our system is informed by an informal formative interview with six experts who provide classroom hands-on instruction in various domains---three physical therapy instructors, one professional yoga instructor, one sports coach, and one high-school science teacher who conducts a science experiment.
During one hour interview, we first asked open-ended questions about their needs, opportunities, and challenges for remote teaching. Then, we also asked how they perceive the current remote teaching approaches like zoom video and virtual telepresence~\cite{orts2016holoportation, thoravi2019loki} by showing an image and video for context and inspiration.

\subsubsection{Challenges of Remote Hands-on Training}
When we asked about the possibility of remote instruction, most of them express significant challenges.
For example, experts mention that remotely teaching students through Zoom is not as effective as co-located instruction, as students cannot see from different angles, and the instructor also cannot observe students, which diminishes the coaching experience.
Although some experts see promise in the MR system, other experts doubt its effectiveness due to fundamental differences between co-located and virtual experiences.
For example, in certain areas like physical therapy, they emphasize the importance of physical demonstration, as the lack of physical demonstration and human touch leads to a poor learning experience.

\subsubsection{Scalability for Classroom Uses}
While experts saw potential benefits of adopting virtual 3D remote instruction like \textit{Holoportation}~\cite{orts2016holoportation}, another challenge expressed by experts is the practicality and scalability of these AR/VR-based approaches.
For example, they express a reluctance to adopt HMDs at scale in their classrooms due to accessibility issues.
Affordability is another issue, as it requires a prohibitive cost.
In addition, they express concern that their demonstrations would not be clearly and accurately visualized, especially when touching or interacting with physical bodies.
Overall, they see benefits for the MR system for one-on-one instruction, but it is not clear how it can be used in classrooms.

\subsubsection{Strong Needs and Opportunities for Remote Instruction}
On the other hand, they also express a strong need for and interest in remote education.
For example, some of the experts live far from their classroom studios and this constant long-distance travel often causes significant logistical and scheduling problems.
Additionally, they also express great interest in further benefits of remote teaching, in particular the ability to scale their lessons to reach as many students as possible as easily as possible.

\subsubsection{Design Goals and Rationale}
In summary, through the formative interviews, we learned
\begin{enumerate}
\item The observation of the instructor's demonstration is vital for classroom hands-on training
\item There is a strong need for remote instruction but current methods are not suitable
\item Mixed reality instruction is promising for one-on-one training, especially with the first-person POV demonstrations and coaching.
\item The method should be scalable, accessible, and affordable for use in classroom settings for each student.
\end{enumerate}

Based on these requirements, we gradually developed a basis for ChameleonControl{}'s approach, which re-purposes a real human surrogate as a physical demonstrator.
With this approach, we solve two problems at once: 1) providing one-on-one demonstration through mixed reality feedback for a local student, and 2) using the local student as a physical demonstrator for other students in the classroom.

\subsection{System and Implementation}
In ChameleonControl{}'s framework, there are three types of users: 1) a remote instructor, 2) a local surrogate, and 3) a student audience in a classroom.

\subsubsection*{1) Remote Instructors}
First, a remote instructor is an expert who teaches and demonstrates hands-on training to the student audience, such as physical therapy training, yoga and exercise instruction, mechanical assembly, science experiments, sports training, cooking lessons, and other hands-on physical tasks.
In our system, the remote instructor can watch the local surrogate's first-person POV through her head-worn camera (Zed Mini) which streams to a 2D display (Acer 24-inch display) in front of the instructor.
On the other hand, the instructor's face captured by a webcam (Logitech C930) is shown in the local surrogate's face through a video conferencing application (Google Meet).
On top of that, the remote instructor's hand movement is captured through a hand motion tracking device (Leap Motion), which can cover a wide 80cm by 60cm tracking area 120 degrees vertically and 140 degrees horizontally.
Both the instructor and the local surrogate can see the overlaid virtual hands in their POV, which allows synchronized body motion between the remote and local surrogates. Additionally, the instructor can communicate verbally with the surrogate via the iPad-face video conferencing call or an audio call on a separate nearby device (laptop, phone, etc) in cases when the iPad-face wasn't used.
The tracked hand skeleton information is provided by the Leap Motion to Unity application, which is run on a Windows machine (OS: Windows 11, CPU: Intel Core i7-11700K, GPU: Nvidia RTX 3050, RAM: 32GB Crucial Ballistix) with 60 FPS.
The remote instructor can see the local surrogate's camera view, in which their own virtual hands (Ultraleap's Ghost Hands model/texture) are also overlaid on top of the camera view.

\subsubsection*{2) Local Surrogates}
Second, a local surrogate acts as a physical embodiment of the remote instructor.
The local surrogate wears a custom MR headset, which consists of three components: 1) \textbf{Headset:} Meta Quest 2 for a mixed reality headset, 2) \textbf{Display:} an iPad Air for a display screen to show the remote instructor's face, 3) \textbf{Camera:} a Zed Mini stereoscopic camera to capture the outside view, effectively converting the Meta Quest 2 from a VR to an MR display.
We mount all of these components with a 3D-printed custom mount and Velcro tape.
First, the attached stereoscopic camera captures the local person's view which is streamed to VR headset, so that the local surrogate can see as if they're looking through a pass-through display.
The same camera is also streamed to the remote instructor, so that they can see the same POV at the same time.
The remote instructor's 3D gestural navigation is overlaid on top of the stereoscopic camera feed as a pair of virtual hands (for both local and remote users' scenes).
While Meta Quest itself has a grayscale passthrough view, we cannot use this because the built-in cameras are occluded with the iPad screen.
For the same reason, we avoid all built-in passthrough cameras (e.g., Vive Pro) and instead use an external camera like the Zed Mini, which can be attached on top of the iPad screen.
Zed Mini is connected to a local Windows machine (OS: Windows 11, CPU: Intel Core i7-11700K, GPU: Nvidia RTX 3050, RAM: 32GB Crucial Ballistix) via a cable.
The machine renders the captured 3D scene in the Unity application, then streams it to the local surrogate's Quest through Oculus Link and SteamVR. As mentioned before, the surrogate can communicate with the remote instructor verbally via the iPad-face video conferencing call or via an audio call on a separate nearby device (laptop, phone, etc) in cases when the iPad-face wasn't used.
The total weight of the custom headset (Meta Quest 2, Additional Battery Pack, iPad Air 10-inch, and Zed Mini) is 1.30 kg.

Since the role of the local surrogate is to act and behave exactly like the remote instructor does, the local surrogate is supposed to move her hands by matching with the overlaid virtual hands, so that their body motions can be synchronized.
Moreover, the attached tablet display shows the remote instructor's face to create an expression and illusion that the remote instructor is co-located.
The local surrogate can be anybody capable of synchronizing with the remote user, the requirements for which depend on the use case. For example, some situations may not require surrogates to move around (i.e., surrogates can be seated), while others may only require synchronization of one hand. In general, we believe that anyone able-bodied and capable of synchronizing properly with the remote user can play the role of a surrogate. We envision that in classroom settings, a willing student volunteer or teaching assistant will likely play the role of a surrogate.

\subsubsection*{3) Student Audience in a Classroom}
Finally, there is a student audience that observes the local surrogate's demonstration.
In contrast to the existing works (e.g., ChameleonMask~\cite{misawa2015chameleonmask, misawa2015wearing, misawa2016touching}), our focus is specifically on remote hands-on training for classrooms.
In our system, the local surrogate herself provides the same demonstration for students, since the local surrogate's and remote instructor's body motions should be synchronized.
Unlike other mixed reality hands-on training systems~\cite{thoravi2019loki, huang2021adaptutar, chidambaram2021processar}, the student audience does not need any equipment such as MR/VR head-mounted displays (e.g., Hololens) or mobile AR devices, as they can observe the hands-on physical demonstration in the same way as they do in co-located hands-on instruction. Finally, the student audience can communicate verbally with the remote instructor via the iPad-face video conferencing call or via an audio call on a separate nearby device (laptop, phone, etc) in cases when the iPad-face was not used.

\section{User Study}

\subsection{Overview of Three User Studies}
To evaluate ChameleonControl{}, we conducted the following three different user studies:

\subsub{1) In-Class Deployment for Physiotherapy Training} In this study, we evaluate our system by deploying in a hands-on training classroom of physio and massage therapy education, where a total of 20 students experience and compare our system with different lesson-delivery methods as a classroom audience.

\subsub{2) Expert Review from Physical Therapy Instructors and Students}
Moreover, we conduct an in-depth user study with 10 instructors and 14 students (split into pairs with one instructor and one student each) in order to evaluate our system from the remote instructor and local student surrogate perspectives.

\subsub{3) Usability Test for Different Applications}
This study evaluates the effectiveness of our system for different applications beyond the previous studies' specific domain of physiotherapy training.
To this end, we prepare three sample hands-on instruction tasks in cooking lessons, mechanical assembly training, and sign language instruction as possible hands-on classroom situations and evaluate with 9 participants from the local surrogate and student audience perspectives.

\subsection{In-Class Deployment for Physiotherapy Classrooms}

\subsubsection{Research Questions}
For this study, our goal was to evaluate the \textbf{student audience's experiences} in classrooms as compared to the other approaches.
To achieve this, we designed our study with 4 distinct lesson-delivery methods, detailed as follows:

\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Zoom:} Remote teaching based on Zoom.
\item \textbf{MobileAR:} Virtual hand avatars shown on iPad screen
\item \textbf{No Face:} ChameleonControl{} without the iPad face
\item \textbf{Ours:} ChameleonControl{}
\end{itemize}
We prepared these conditions because we are interested in evaluating the following research questions:

\begin{itemize}
\item \subsub{RQ1. Physical vs Virtual Demonstration} Compared to Zoom or the Mobile AR hand avatar condition, does the in-person physical demonstration by the real-human surrogate improve the learning experiences?
\item \subsub{RQ2. Face vs No Face} Compared to the no face condition, does the face shown on top of the local surrogate (via their face-mounted iPad) improve the audience's sense of co-presence with the remote instructor?
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Method and Participants}
To evaluate our system in an actual hands-on classroom, we deploy our system to a professional massage therapy school, the largest massage therapy school in our local community~\footnote{\url{https://makamicollege.com/}}.
We recruited a total of 20 participants (9 male, 11 female, ages 18-49) to evaluate the classroom audience perspective.
All of the participants are actual students in the school who are learning to become licensed therapists.
The study was deployed in one of the classrooms in their school and conducted over 4 days.
Participants were first introduced to the overview of our study and then experienced the four conditions one by one.
We had a total of four different sessions (each session had roughly 5 participants), with the order of the conditions randomized for each session.

For the remote instructor and local surrogate, we recruited professional physiotherapy instructors from the same school for each session.
For the \textbf{Zoom condition}, the instructor's demonstration is streamed from a third-person view, with the camera angle controlled by an author.
For the \textbf{mobile AR virtual hand condition}, we show the instructor's real-time hand movement tracked with a Leap Motion Controller, then overlay it on top of the scanned 3D patient in a Unity environment.
Each student can then watch the virtual hand movement in free-viewpoint with the iOS "Unity Virtual Camera" app on an iPad and can control the camera position displayed on the iPad by tilting it as well as using two control inputs, one as a joystick for forward/backward movement as well as left/right movement. The other input control allows users to move the camera up and down. This way, users have a full 6-degrees of freedom to move around the unity scene.
We needed to choose this method as using an iPad is the only scalable way for each student to experience real-time virtual telepresence.
For the \textbf{no face condition}, we use the same ChameleonControl{} system, but without the face-mounted iPad (just the Meta Quest 2 headset and attached Zed Mini camera), so that the audience doesn't see the instructor's face overlayed on the surrogate's face.
For each condition, the remote instructor provides a real chair massage therapy lesson as they do in a regular classroom setting, and after 5-10 minutes, we switch to the next condition.
Once the participants experienced all conditions, then they were asked to fill out an online questionnaire form.
In total, the study took approximately 60 minutes and each participant was compensated 10 CAD.

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/study-result-3.pdf}
\caption{The four conditions of the first user study deployed in-class for physiotherapy lessons and evaluated by the student audience.}
\label{fig:study-result-1}
\Description{This image displays a data visualization showing the results of the first user study which was conducted to assess the student audience's perspective on 4 different lesson-delivery methods: Zoom, Mobile AR, ChameleonControl without the iPad face and ChameleonControl.}
\end{figure*}

\subsubsection{Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:study-result-1} summarizes the 7-point Likert-scale questions for each condition.
For Figure~\ref{fig:study-result-1}, ~\ref{fig:study-result-2} and ~\ref{fig:non-massage-study}, the actual questionnaire was ``Please rate from 1 to 7 (with 7 being the best) for the followings:
1) \textbf{Overall}: Overall, how much you liked each lesson-delivery method,
2) \textbf{Engagement}: How engaging you felt each lesson-delivery method was,
3) \textbf{Clarify}: How clear and informative you felt each lesson-delivery method was,
4) \textbf{Understand}: How easy-to-understand each lesson-delivery method was,
and
5) \textbf{Co-Presence}: How much you perceived the remote user's co-presence for each lesson-delivery method''.
These questions were inspired by and partially derived from the literature (e.g., co-presence:~\cite{kim2019evaluating, lee2017mixed, adalgeirsson2010mebot}, engagement:~\cite{adalgeirsson2010mebot}, easy to understand:~\cite{oyama2021integrating, lee2017mixed}, etc).
Below, we discuss the following aspects in more detail.

\ \\
\subsub{RQ1. Physical vs Virtual Demonstration}
When comparing our system with Zoom or Mobile AR instructions, our system improves the \textbf{level of engagement} over both Zoom and Mobile AR based on the average 7-point Likert-scale score (Ours: 5.5, Zoom: 4.6, Mobile AR: 4.4).
The participants also report that our system's \textbf{clarity and informativeness of instruction} is better than both Zoom and Mobile AR (Ours: 6.0, Zoom: 5.1, Mobile AR: 5.0).
Participants responded positively to the physical and in-person experiences our system can provide.
For example, \textit{``P4: Real person with iPad face was better because I felt like the teacher was actually in person''}.
\textit{``P19: The VR (our system) felt more like I was in class learning than anything''}
\textit{``P17: Felt like a person was there (with our system)''}
The physical demonstration also allows the participants to see the instruction in much easier ways.
\textit{``P6: Seeing a person perform in person is easiest to view''}.

Participants also rated our system as a similar \textbf{overall experience} to Zoom and Mobile AR (Ours: 4.6, Zoom: 4.6, Mobile AR: 4.3), higher for the sense of co-presence (Ours: 5.2, Zoom: 4.1, Mobile AR: 4.4), and the \textbf{easiness of understanding} (Ours: 5.7, Zoom: 5.6, Mobile AR: 4.9). Participants generally preferred the physical demonstration over the video-based instruction or Mobile AR telepresence.
\textit{``P3: I believe that the demonstration with the instructor having a face on iPad felt more realistic and that the teacher is more present. Loved that.''}
\textit{P15: It's more interesting to see the instruction being performed physically}.
Interestingly, however, participants reported that the Zoom lesson is also easy to understand because of familiarity.
\textit{``P3: Zoom is easy to understand because I am used to it''}.
For the same reason, Mobile AR virtual hands were not positively appreciated due to the lack of familiarity.
\textit{``P18: Each student has a different age group and different education level, and it takes a long time to learn and adapt''}.
In that sense, our system allows easy adaption as the students do not need to equip or learn anything, which indicates the easy deployment and adaption for classroom lectures.
When asked whether they overall prefer our system, compared to zoom or mobile AR, participants responded (7: strongly agree, 1: strongly disagree) indicating that, overall, most students preferred our system to other methods.

\ \\
\subsub{RQ2. Face vs No Face}
In contrast to our expectations, overall, participants slightly prefer the no face condition for overall experiences (Ours: 4.6, No Face: 5.8), the sense of co-presence (Ours: 5.2, No Face: 5.3), easiness of understanding (Ours: 5.7, No Face: 6.1), the level of engagement (Ours: 5.5, No Face: 5.5), and clarity of the instruction (Ours: 6.0, No Face: 6.0).
However, some participants see the benefits of the visibility of the remote instructor's face.
For example,
\textit{``P10: Being able to see or even hear the instructor is beneficial for me personally''}.
But other participants do not feel the strong benefits of seeing the face on iPad, mostly because of the immaturity of the current technology or method of using iPad.
\textit{``P11: iPad face is just weird''}.
\textit{``P6: My preference would be to utilize the headset but the displayed face on a real person is a bit creepy''}.
One observation we had was that the participants watch the instructor's demonstration from various different angles and the face shown on the iPad is not properly visible from side angles/views.
We also noticed that most of the participants focus on the instructor's hands rather than her face, thus, we learn that the participants largely don't care whether the remote instructor's face is presented or not, as long as they demonstrate in a co-located and physical manner.
\textit{``P5: I don't really need to see an instructor's face''}.
\textit{``P20: I don't think it's necessary to have an iPad face. I prefer a real person with VR''}.
As a follow-up question, we also brought a Microsoft Hololens 2 headset and informally ask whether the participants prefer the instructor's face on iPad over another person's face with a see-through Hololens headset, the majority of the participants prefer the see-through headset, even though they see the surrogate's face instead of the instructor's.
We did not implement the Hololens condition, thus we could not formally compare between these two but this indicates that for some situations like physiotherapy training, we could leverage a mixed reality \textit{see-through} display for real-human teleoperation instruction in the future.

\subsection{Expert Review from Physiotherapy Instructors and Students}
\subsubsection{Research Questions}
For the second user study, our goal is to evaluate the user experiences from both the \textbf{remote instructor's and the local surrogate student's perspectives}, as opposed to the student audience perspective.
We designed our study with the following three conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{First-Person Zoom:} Zoom remote instruction from the first-person point of view
\item \textbf{Third-Person Zoom:} Zoom remote instruction from the third-person point of view
\item \textbf{Mixed Reality Gesture:} Mixed reality gestural guidance overlaid on top of the student's first-person view with our system
\end{itemize}
We prepared for these conditions because we are interested in evaluating the following research questions:

\begin{itemize}
\item \subsub{RQ3. Immersive vs Non-Immersive Guidance for Local Students} Compared to the zoom-based guidance (similar to the existing methods in ChameleonMask~\cite{misawa2015chameleonmask, misawa2015wearing, misawa2016touching}), can the mixed reality gestural guidance improve the learning experience for the local surrogate student?
\item \subsub{RQ4. Immersive vs Non-Immersive Guidance for Remote Instructor} Can the mixed reality gestural guidance provide both a better teaching experience as well as an easier way to control and guide the surrogate for teleoperation?
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Method and Participants}
We recruited 10 instructors (4 male, 6 female; age: 26-48) and 14 students (4 male, 10 female; age: 18-58) from the same physiotherapy training institutions.
The instructors are all professional and licensed therapists who have at least 4 years of teaching experience and regularly teach in-person massage and physical therapy classes with 10-40 students.
The students are massage therapy students at the same school.
The study was conducted in the same classroom location as the first study.
The participants were first introduced to an overview of our study, and then experience three different conditions, one with our system and another two with Zoom from both first-person and third-person perspectives, in a randomized order.
For each condition, the instructor is told to teach as they would do in person, and the local surrogate student is supposed to behave and mimic the instructor's behavior as a teleoperated person by synchronizing their hand movements with the remote instructor's virtual avatar hands.
For the \textbf{first-person Zoom} condition, we mount the webcam to the instructor's forehead and stream it to an iPad, which is placed in front of the local student.
For the \textbf{third-person Zoom} condition, an author controls the camera angle/perspective and streams it to an iPad, which is placed in front of the local student.
Each condition takes 5-10 minutes, then we switch to the next condition. After experiencing each condition, participants were asked to fill out an online questionnaire. In total, the study took approximately 40 minutes and each participant was compensated 10 CAD.

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/study-result-2.pdf}
\caption{The three conditions of the second user study deployed in-class for physiotherapy lessons and evaluated by the real-human surrogate and remote expert instructor.}
\label{fig:study-result-2}
\Description{This image displays a data visualization showing the results of the second user study which was conducted to assess the remote instructor and local surrogate perspectives on 3 different lesson-delivery methods: First-person Zoom, Third-person Zoom and ChameleonControl.}
\end{figure*}

\subsubsection{Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:study-result-2} summarizes the 7-point Likert-scale questions for each condition.
Below, we discuss the following aspects in more detail.

\ \\
\subsub{RQ3. Immersive vs Non-Immersive Guidance for Local Students}
When compared to our mixed reality gestural guidance with both Zoom-based methods, our system improves the \textbf{easiness of understanding} over both first-person POV and third-person POV video-based guidance (Ours: 6.3, 1st POV: 6.2, 3rd POV 5.7) for local surrogate students.
Many participants mentioned that the mixed reality approach is easy to follow (P2, P7, P9, P10) and easy to understand (P5, P7).
\textit{``P5: With the immersive AR lesson the instructor's hands were easy to trace and steps were easy to replicate. 1st person wasn't as immersive and 3rd person was just bad''}.
\textit{``P6: The immersive AR was very practical for me, the 1st person zoom gave me more of a personal point of view perspective, but I still preferred the hands-on experience with the instructor as in the AR Lesson''}.
\textit{``P8: I can understand better how to position my hands and body''}.
\textit{``P9: I could see how to position my hands After seeing my instructor's hands''}

The local surrogate students also report that the \textbf{level of engagement} was much better compared to the 1st-person POV and 3rd POV video-based guidance (Ours: 6.5, 1st POV: 5.5, 3rd POV: 5.2).
For example, participants mentioned the following
\textit{``P11: I really felt that the Vr experience was the most engaging''}.
\textit{``P5: immersive was really engaging because of the hand tracing 1st and 3rd person was just demonstrating''}.
\textit{``P2: AR- very engaging almost like a video game. It was a different feel and it kept my attention''}.
Participants also respond positively for other metrics, such as overall experiences (Ours: 6.1, 1st POV: 5.7, 3rd POV: 5.2), the sense of co-presence (Ours: 6.2, 1st POV: 5.5, 3rd POV: 5.3), and clarity and informative (Ours: 5.8, 1st POV: 5.5, 3rd POV: 5.5).
In general, the third-person POV was the lowest rated for most of the metrics.
\textit{``P6: The 3rd person Zoom POV was my least favorite, just because with the other ones I could see more of the client I'm working on more closely''}.

On the other hand, some participants mentioned that the first-person Zoom had better visual clarity and relayed other contextual information better, such as how much pressure to be applied in massage training.
\textit{``P2: For AR, the only thing was not knowing how much pressure to apply. On the other hand, the 1st video is much better to tell how much pressure to apply.''}
\textit{``P4: In AR even though you can see the instructor's hands it doesn't feel as if you are really with someone as the hands are very hard to make out sometimes where as in the videos you get to see the instructor fully''}.
The participants also mentioned that voice-based communication helped AR instruction a lot.
\textit{``P4: The videos gave more visual clarity but the voice helped a lot in the AR''}.
Also, the participants mention that they need to have time to adapt.
\textit{``P1: AR helped a lot. Just a little weird to get used to''}.

\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/study-result-5.pdf}
\caption{Usability test for different (non-physiotherapy) applications and their results.}
\label{fig:non-massage-study}
\Description{This image displays a data visualization showing the results of the third user study which was conducted to assess ChameleonControl's suitability for non-physiotherapy scenarios. Namely: Mechanical Assembly, Cooking Classes, Sign Language Lessons.}
\end{figure*}

\ \\
\subsub{RQ4. Immersive vs Non-Immersive Guidance for Remote Instructors}
When comparing our mixed reality gestural guidance and the Zoom-based guidance, the instructors report our system is significantly \textbf{easier to control} (the surrogate) than both 1st POV and 3rd POV video-based guidance for remote instructors (Ours: 6.4, 1st POV: 4.1, 3rd POV: 3.6).
The instructors also report our system is significantly \textbf{easier to teach} than both 1st-person POV and 3rd-person POV video-based guidance (Ours: 6.1, 1st POV: 5.0, 3rd POV: 5.6).
For example, the instructors mention that
\textit{``P1: Evaluating students is much easier with the AR system. With Zoom, you need to stop the demonstration and look at what students are doing. With the Ar system, I can help them in real-time.''}.
\textit{``P3: Student feedback is real-time, as is instructor feedback. This is much faster than Zoom.''}.

For other metrics, the instructors report positively about the overall experiences (Ours: 6.4, 1st POV: 4.6, 3rd POV: 5.8), the sense of co-presence (Ours: 5.2, 1st POV: 4.0, 3rd POV: 4.5), and clarity and informative (Ours: 4.6, 1st POV: 4.0, 3rd POV: 4.3).
For example, the instructors mention that
\textit{``P1: Using Zoom, I need to practice on someone here. Using AR lets me demonstrate how the student needs to perform on their particular client. This makes me feel like I'm with the student.''}.
\textit{``P2: they were all similarly good, but I feel more engaged with the student using AR.''}.
\textit{``P3: I like getting instant student responses using AR. Wish I could feel their client tho''}.

\subsection{Usability Test for Different Applications}

\subsubsection{Research Questions}
For the third user study, our goal is to evaluate the \textbf{applicability to different domains and scenarios}.
To achieve this, we designed our study with the following three application domains:

\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Sign Language Class}
\item \textbf{Cooking Lesson}
\item \textbf{Mechanical Assembly Lesson}
\end{itemize}
We chose these conditions because we are interested in evaluating the following research question:
\begin{itemize}
\item \subsub{RQ5. Accuracy of Teleoperation for Different Applications} Does our mixed reality gestural guidance provide accurate and responsive teleoperation for different application scenarios?
\end{itemize}

\subsubsection{Method and Participants}
To evaluate our system, we recruited nine participants from the local community (3: female, 6: male; age: 18-23).
The study was conducted in a research lab.
Participants were first provided an overview of our study, and then experience the four conditions one by one.
We held three different sessions with 3 participants each so that the order of running the conditions are randomized for each session.

The author acts as a remote instructor, and the participant is supposed to act as a local surrogate and synchronize their hands to the instructor's virtual hands.
We capture with a video recording.
For \textbf{sign language}, we prepared eight American Sign Language (ASL) words \textit{Yes, No, You, Little, Sorry, How, Okay, Great} as well as a phrase \textit{What's up! How are you?} to each surrogate student.
For \textbf{cooking lessons}, we prepared for a mock cooking recipe using five small bowls and two utensils (knife and fork) to prepare a recipe by cutting, poking, shaking, and more.
For \textbf{mechanical task}, we prepared for the disassembly tasks of the drill, which consists of five steps: \textit{setting drill safety switch, removing the battery pack, removing drill bit, removing drill bit holder, connecting the battery pack to a charger}.
For each condition, the participant performed the task and after 5-10 minutes we switched to the next condition.
Once the participants experienced all conditions, they were then asked to fill out an online questionnaire.
In total, the study took approximately 40 minutes and each participant was compensated 10 CAD.

\subsubsection{Results}
Figure~\ref{fig:non-massage-study} summarizes the 7-point Likert-scale questions for each scenario.
Below, we discuss the following aspects in more detail.

\ \\
\subsub{RQ5. Accuracy of Teleoperation for Different Applications}
When evaluating our mixed reality gestural guidance as local surrogates, participants rated our system generally well across each condition for each hands-on lesson, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:non-massage-study}. More useful information came from participant comments detailed below.

Many participants mentioned that the mixed reality approach is easy to follow (P2, P7, P8, P9) and easy to understand (P5, P7).
\textit{``P5: with the immersive ar lesson the instructor's hands were easy to trace and steps were easy to replicate. 1st person wasn't as immersive and 3rd person was just bad''}.
\textit{``P6: The immersive AR was very practical for me, the 1st person zoom gave me more of a personal point of view perspective, but I still preferred the hands-on experience with the instructor as in the AR Lesson''}.
\textit{``P8: The engagement was so good it was almost scary. It was like having a hallucination.''}.
\textit{``P9: I could see how to position my hands After seeing my instructor's hands''}
\textit{``P2: It really helps as I don't waste time looking to the screen and pausing the video or having the live stream going''}.
However, some participants complained of a lack of resolution and detail, an inherent limitation of the ZED Mini camera.
\textit{``P6: The vision wasn't very clear so it wasn't so it was a bit difficult to follow with cooking and drill disassembly. Sign language was very easy to follow''}.

\section{Discussion and Future Work}

\subsubsection*{\textbf{The Uncanny Valley Effect and See-Through Mixed Reality Headset for Local Surrogates}}
While surrogates themselves rarely complained about the face-mounted iPad, many participants in the student audience expressed that they found the face-mounted iPad to be ``weird'' or ``creepy''.
One possible explanation for this is that the face-mounted iPad creates a mismatch between the remote instructor's face and the local surrogate's body. For example, the remote instructor may not always be displayed in the center of the screen, which can create an unrealistic feeling for students. In addition, in massage therapy classrooms, the surrogate is usually surrounded by students, making it hard for some students to see the instructor's face from the side view. This problem could be alleviated in lecture-style settings where the students can always see the face from the front.
Alternatively, another possible explanation is that the 2D iPad face may greatly invoke the \textit{uncanny valley effect}, which causes an increasingly negative emotional response when the subject becomes ``more human-like''. In this case, the poor replication of the surrogate's 3D face (more human-like) may cause a more negative feeling than the non-face condition (less human-like) due to the uncanny valley effect.
Participants claimed that they would likely prefer if the surrogate used a see-through mixed reality headset, such as the Microsoft Hololens, which would result in a more natural classroom experience and fewer distractions during the physical demonstrations.

\subsubsection*{\textbf{Ethics of Human Surrogate}} Something important to consider when using human surrogates in teleoperation systems is the distinction between \textit{voluntary} and \textit{involuntary} synchronization between surrogates and remote users. While ChameleonControl{} can only function with a willing participant as the surrogate, other systems could be developed that blur this distinction. For example, using electro-muscular stimulation (EMS) technologies like ~\cite{lopes2015affordance++, tanaka2022electrical}, it is possible to influence surrogates to act or behave according to the will of the remote user.
However, this raises ethical concerns about the potential for involuntary or forced synchronization, as well as the potential for abuse of such technology.
Therefore, it is also important to consider the humanity of human surrogates in teleoperation systems. Replacing a surrogate's movements, behaviors, voice, body parts, or face with those of a remote user can risk dehumanizing the surrogate, particularly to the audience.
On the other hand, it is possible to imagine a future where people are willing to be surrogates as work, similar to how people currently work as delivery drivers for services like Doordash. In such a scenario, there could be a crowdsourcing ecosystem around students, surrogates, and remote instructors that provides personalized, on-demand, hands-on education from anywhere in the world like \cite{suzuki2016atelier} but through a human surrogate system.
However, this also raises ethical concerns about the potential exploitation of surrogates and the need for fair compensation and working conditions.
In any case, future developments in human-surrogate teleoperation should carefully consider the well-being, bodily autonomy and dignity of human surrogates.

\subsubsection*{\textbf{Ambiguity in Hand Gestures}}
While communication between surrogates and remote instructors was generally straightforward and clear, the current setup sometimes causes unclear ambiguity whether hand gestures were intended to communicate with the surrogate or to serve as an instruction to be imitated.
For example, we observed that a remote instructor's thumbs up led to confusion for the surrogate who might unintentionally imitate the gesture.
Despite this limitation of the system, we did not see any problems from the practical point of view, as the participants never complained about misunderstandings or miscommunication related to differentiating between gesturing for communication and synchronization.
Surrogates were able to discern when instructors wanted them to synchronize movements or gestures and when instructors were simply communicating with them. Verbal communication was also used to clarify any potential ambiguities in hand gestures. Overall, the use of hand gestures and verbal communication effectively reduced the potential for confusion or miscommunication.

\subsubsection*{\textbf{Outside-In Tracking for Whole Body Synchronization}}
In our system, we only focus on hand synchronization, but there is a clear opportunity for whole-body synchronization. Not only for physical therapy, but even for other applications such as sports training, dancing, martial arts, and more. Synchronizing more than just the hands would likely create a much more immersive and improved educational experience for the surrogate in addition to a significantly more accurate spatial and physical educational experience for the student audience. In particular, the surrogates, students, and instructors alike requested the ability to synchronize their legs, arms, torsos gaze, and head.
Future work should explore this whole-body synchronization through external depth cameras or motion tracking systems.

\subsubsection*{\textbf{More Accurate Hand Tracking and Head Movement}}
The remote instructor and local surrogates also complain about the accuracy of hand tracking. Implementing more comprehensive and accurate hand-tracking would likely result in further improvements to the educational experience and better spatial/physical demonstrations. Hand occlusion was also a problem since the instructor's hands would often inadvertently move behind an object due to the surrogate's movements since the virtual hand coordinates were bound relative to the surrogate's camera. Some instructors, particularly the physical therapists, expressed a strong desire to overlap their hands for particular techniques and lessons, which would usually occlude one hand completely resulting in a loss of hand-tracking. Increasing the trackable area for the instructor's hands would enable more flexible and natural teaching. Removing tracking devices from the instructor's forehead to fixed positions could provide an easier teaching experience. As stated previously, instructors universally requested an improved method to control the surrogate's gaze by incorporating the gaze visual cues.

\subsubsection*{\textbf{Haptic Feedback and Capturing Local Information for Remote Instructors}}
The instructors, in particular the physical therapists, mention that one major downside to ChameleonControl{} is the loss of a major human sense: touch. To alleviate this, future research may want to explore the use of haptic feedback technologies. While previous work shows that the haptic feedback does not change the task completion time, it does show a significant increase in usability~\cite{wang2020haptic}.
By using haptic devices like haptic gloves~\cite{hinchet2018dextres} or ground-based encountered-type haptics~\cite{suzuki2021hapticbots} capturing the local user's touch sensation for the remote instructor, future research could further bridge the gap between remote and co-located hands-on education.
In addition to losing the sense of touch by using remote education technologies, other types of information are lost as well. Feedback from instructors indicated that instructors would like various real-time information sent from the surrogate. For example, the physical therapist instructors mentioned that measuring and relaying the pressure applied by the surrogate student could provide valuable real-time information for evaluating and correcting student techniques and behaviors.

\subsubsection*{\textbf{Long-term Learning Effects through In-the-Wild Studies}}
In this study, we did not evaluate any learning effects, such as pre-test and post-test analysis. The physio and massage therapy students were familiar with the instructions given by instructors, thus deployment with a fresh incoming group of students could reveal more about how systems like ours can impact students' educational experiences more accurately. Finally, to evaluate potential learning benefits, future work could explore long-term classroom use of real-human teleoperation systems like ours.

\section{Conclusion}
We present ChameleonControl{}, a scalable, remote instruction system for hands-on classrooms using teleoperated real-human surrogates.
On top of the existing human-based telepresence~\cite{misawa2015chameleonmask}, this paper contributes to the first concept of \textit{real-human teleoperation} by combining human-surrogate telepresence and mixed reality gestural guidance.
By overlaying the remote instructor's virtual hands in the local user's MR view, the remote instructor can guide and control a local user, as if the remote instructor is teleoperating a real human. This enables the remote instructor to demonstrate hands-on, physical, and spatial lessons remotely and scalably to a classroom of students.
We deployed and evaluated our system in actual classrooms of massage therapy training, where 20 students evaluate and compare our system with video or mobile AR remote instruction from the student audience perspective. Additionally, 10 instructors and 14 students evaluate our system from the remote instructor and local surrogate perspectives and we conduct a third user study with 9 non-massage participants to evaluate our system for different (non-physiotherapy) applications, including sign language, cooking lessons, and mechanical assembly. The study results confirm that our approach can increase the engagement and sense of co-presence, showing the potential for the future of remote hands-on classrooms. We hope to inspire further research within real-human teleoperation.

\subsection{The First User Study}

Other comments:
\textit{``P20: VR technology is not fully mature, it still has a gap between it and real class.''}
\textit{``P4: I believe it is either zoom or fake see through glass makes this more better than other options.''}
\textit{``P4: I believe it is either zoom or fake see through glass makes this more better than other options.''}
\textit{``P3: The zoom presentation to me was the worse because even though it has its benefit it is more difficult because it just seems like a live pre recorder video''}
P15: I like seeing in person
For the zoom lesson and virtual hands it feels like your watching a video
\textit{P19: Not being able to see a demonstration from the virtual hands, I'm not fully able to tell what presence I feel from it''}
\textit{``P4: We can connect more with the instructor live''}
but having the face on the IPad didn't make any difference for me

I liked how everything was in VR or zoom I feel like lots of people would learn more even if there not there because let's say there sick and can't be somewhere in person they would have this to still learn
I liked the fact that you could see the persons face demonstrating the instructors action most in the real person with fake see through AR headset
I put lower grades for all, because I think the real engagement would be with real person
Each method I feel makes it harder to learn accurately
Seeing the massage in person is something I find easier to understand

\subsection{The Second User Study}

OTHER COMMENTS:
\textit{``P3: Heared instructions clearly''}
\textit{``P7: Inmersive it's easy to use''}
\textit{``P9: It's better''}
\textit{``P10: AR-because you can do it together with your instructor. 1st zoom- not as much as VR. 3rd zoom- not as much as VR''}
\textit{``P11: I found the car hand extremely hard to follow, I enjoyed the experience though''}
\textit{``P12: The numbers I chose are based on how well I felt when following the instructions.''}
\textit{``P1: Seeing the hands on the client with mine helps me understand pace and where to be better''}
\textit{``P3: Easy to hear''}
\textit{``P5: immersive and 1st person were both easy to understand. 3rd person again couldn't see as much''}
\textit{``P6: Same answer as above''}
\textit{``P7: Easy to use''}
\textit{``P9: I understand the instructor well''}
\textit{``P10: VR- because you can do it with your instructor by seeing his/her hand. 1st- not as much as VR. 3rd-not as much as VR.''}
\textit{``P12: Again, it is based on how well I could follow instructions''}
\textit{``P1: Ar felt best. The help was right onto of my hands.''}
\textit{``P2: AR- very engaging almost like a video game. It was a different feel and it kept my attention. 1st- I was engaged to a certain extent it felt more like just watching a regular video. 3rd. Almost the same as 1st. It did give me a chance to practice body mechanics''}
\textit{``P3: Good experience''}
\textit{``P4: I felt the same amount of engagement for them all''}
\textit{``P5: immersive was really engaging because of the hand tracing 1st and 3rd person was just demonstrating''}
\textit{``P6: Same answer as above''}
\textit{``P7: The AR lessons easy to use and understand''}
\textit{``P8: All your senses are engaged at once''}
\textit{``P9: The instructor deliver the instruction well and can follow easily''}
\textit{``P10: VR- because you can do it with your instructor by seeing his/her hand. 1st- not as much as VR. 3rd-not as much as VR.''}
\textit{``P11: I really felt that the Vr experience was the most engaging''}
\textit{``P12: Mostly based on the advice or what the instructor have said.''}

\textit{``P2: 3rd- following was east as well and I especially appreciate the view of body mechanics''}
\textit{``P2: 3rd was great for body mechanic''}
CO-PRESENCE
\textit{``P2: The 1st person video gave more of a reality you could tell how much pressure to apply.''}
3rd person feels impersonal. I can't see properly what the teacher is doing.
INFORMATIVE
\textit{``P1: Fairly clear. Bit with the ghost hands we can be sure.''}
\textit{``P2: For each video it was very informative. I was able to follow along. Again just the lack of reality with AR in that I wasn't able to follow pressure or body mechanics wise. Everything else was good.''}
\textit{``P3: Should have video game suit to be accurate''}
\textit{``P4: The hands were hard to make out most of the time but the voice helped in ar, in the videos it's clear what he is doing and how it should be done''}
\textit{``P5: immersive and 1st person was clear to understand and 3rd person I couldn't see as much''}
\textit{``P6: Same answer as above''}
\textit{``P7: feel that we are in person''}
\textit{``P8: You can't miss the information provided''}
\textit{``P9: It's clear and can follow easily to the instructor''}
\textit{``P10: VR- because you can do it with your instructor by seeing his/her hand. 1st- not as much as VR. 3rd-not as much as VR''}
\textit{``P11: Again just struggled keeping my hands on the instructions hands''}
\textit{``P12: Mostly based on the engagement and advice the instructor gave.''}
\textit{``P11: The instructor was still able to help me, but it was nothing like having them in class with you''}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


Well, we're back from Pordenone, sadly before the silent film festival itself is over, but pressing matters called us back. But there is plenty to report on, starting with the news of a new website for Domitor, the international association dedicated to the study of early cinema.
This is very welcome because Domitor, while being an organisation notable for its dedication towards the early part of the twentieth century, has been slower to grasp the opportunities – indeed necessities – of the twenty-first. The old website suffered from an antiquated look and a severe lack of updating, indeed a severe lack of any reason for anyone interested in early cinema to visit it. Hopefully the new site is indication of a change of policy, bringing news, resources and exchange of knowledge online.
Domitor (the names comes from that suggested by the father of the Lumière brothers for their projector) was founded in 1985 at the Pordenone festival, where it holds a meeting each year. It organises a biennial conference on aspects of early cinema, the first having taken place in Quebec in 1990 and the next to be held in Brighton in June 2012, on the theme 'Performing new media, 1890-1915'. Most of the papers presented at its conferences have been published in anthologies or special-issue volumes, details of which can be found on the site. They are essential for following trends in early cinema scholarship. There are some 300 members from over 30 countries, and all business is conducted in English and French.
The website tells you about the organisation, its conferences and publications, information on how to become a member, with a resources page covering recent publications and bibliography of members' writings, a DVD Database, a news page, and an archive all promised for later. There is also a list of links. Sadly for the bilingualists, the French section of the site is not up yet (it's expected in April 2012). Let's hope the site grows as it has the potential to grow.


text:
Q: ISNULL Syntax Challenge I can't seem to figure out the syntax issue here.
This works, but returns nulls;
SELECT jo.Job_Operation, jo.Job, jo.Work_Center, jo.Operation_Service, jo.Est_Total_Hrs,
    (SELECT SUM(jot.Act_Run_Hrs)
    FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation_Time jot
    WHERE jot.Job_Operation = jo.Job_Operation) AS Cost
FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation jo
WHERE jo.Job = 'A5076027'

So I'm trying to use ISNULL here but I get an error:
SELECT jo.Job_Operation, jo.Job, jo.Work_Center, jo.Operation_Service, jo.Est_Total_Hrs,
    (ISNULL(SELECT SUM(jot.Act_Run_Hrs)
    FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation_Time jot
    WHERE jot.Job_Operation = jo.Job_Operation,0)) AS Cost
FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation jo
WHERE jo.Job = 'A5076027'

The error is:
Msg 156, Level 15, State 1, Line 2
Incorrect syntax near the keyword 'SELECT'.
Msg 102, Level 15, State 1, Line 4
Incorrect syntax near ','.
Can anyone see what I'm missing here?
Thanks!

A: try this:
SELECT jo.Job_Operation, jo.Job, jo.Work_Center, jo.Operation_Service, jo.Est_Total_Hrs,
    ISNULL((SELECT SUM(jot.Act_Run_Hrs)
    FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation_Time jot
    WHERE jot.Job_Operation = jo.Job_Operation),0) AS Cost
FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation jo
WHERE jo.Job = 'A5076027'

A: I don't think you need a correlated subquery here. This seems to me like a standard left join is all that is required.
SELECT jo.Job_Operation
    , jo.Job
    , jo.Work_Center
    , jo.Operation_Service
    , jo.Est_Total_Hrs
    , SUM(isnull(jot.Act_Run_Hrs, 0)) AS Cost
FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation jo
left join PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation_Time jot ON jot.Job_Operation = jo.Job_Operation
WHERE jo.Job = 'A5076027'
GROUP BY
    jo.Job_Operation
    , jo.Job
    , jo.Work_Center
    , jo.Operation_Service
    , jo.Est_Total_Hrs

A: This is far more legible in my opinion
SELECT
   jo.Job_Operation, jo.Job, jo.Work_Center, jo.Operation_Service, jo.Est_Total_Hrs
   ,ISNULL(jot.[SumAct_Run_Hrs],0) AS Cost
FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation jo
LEFT JOIN (
    SELECT Job_Operation,SUM(Act_Run_Hrs) [SumAct_Run_Hrs]
    FROM PRODUCTION.dbo.Job_Operation_Time
    GROUP BY Job_Operation
) jot ON jot.Job_Operation = jo.Job_Operation
WHERE jo.Job = 'A5076027'

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Born and raised in Sevierville, Tennessee (Great Smoky Mountains). Lived in Madison, Tennessee most of his professional life.
Real name: Beecher Ray Kirby. He also went by the name Pete Kirby.
He was a longtime member of Roy Acuff's Smokey Mountain Boys (1934-1992).
He is best known for introducing the resophonic guitar (Dobro™) to country music. He also plays clawhammer banjo.
The nickname "Bashful Brother Oswald" was given to him by Acuff when he added a young unmarried woman named Rachel Veach to his band. Oswald pretended to be her brother, making her presence in the group acceptable to conservative audiences. To fit his name, Kirby created the clownish Oswald character, wearing a floppy, wide-brimmed hat, tattered bib overalls, over-sized work shoes and adopting a braying laugh.
After Acuff's death, he was made a member of the Grand Ole Opry (1994) and continued to perform as a solo artist.
1994, appeared on The Great Dobro Sessions album, featuring other musicians like Mike Auldridge, Jerry Douglas, Josh Graves, Rob Ickes, Tut Taylor and Gene Wooten.
He died in 2002 at the age of 90.


Pattern allows for both indoor and endoflife management and cutting the extreme series enjoy beautiful durable carpeting with a negative carbon footprint of recycled content in the worlds poorest coastal communities. Discarded fishing economies with the tiles from interface walk off carpet interface is to reclamation and a. What is interface carpet tile green, fitted carpet tile with the materials global manufacturing the amount of recycled content is fused directly at risk. Tiles have always better interface focused on environmental impact lorna thorpe. Contains recycled content when choosing a multitude of new carpet erface began with graphlex backing hardwearing and patterns to.
Tile backing that save time money clean my space duration clean my space views. That can vary that remind us of carpet production a great foundation for its durable economical high quality and adhesives and without professional installation they offer the commercial carpet tile and. How much interface carpet tile green, installation and without professional installation cost posted in the floors of discarded in color palettes grounded in conjunction with carpet production a forest combining a line of a random pattern that piney scent after mopping can bring to fit the carpet tiles with your home idea read more luxurious feel of four tiles.
More. Carpet tile and now. Interface carpet tile green sale, gauteng and replaced. Unique as modular carpet tiles these tiles and squares interlocking installation and shingles made from the environment. Tiles design with this quality iaq ever set by traditional adhesives including contemporary designs flor carpet tiles rather than purchasing a mindset and sustainability there is a great foundation for all results. Any design possibilities and research at the latest grounding requirements set by definition we are intentionally left unfinished and now leads the worlds largest manufacturer of find new or only install the end youll find green carpet tiles.


Portishead Liberal Democrats want to make sure that the people here are well served by the council.
By filling in this survey you will help ensure that we are working on the issues that matter most to you and your family.
Do you agree with the Liberal Democrats that a larger Skatepark should be built in Portishead?


Weed-infused treats are nothing new but edibles, in general, are experiencing a come up in the form of hundreds of new, innovative foods that are being infused. You can enjoy infused bbq sauce at your next cookout, drizzle infused olive oil over your salad greens, sip an infused wine at dinner and for the sweet tooth, the dessert options are limitless.
When you ingest cannabis that's been infused into food or beverage you MUST remember to pace yourself. it typically takes about an hour for the effects to kick in so it's important not to eat too much too fast or you may find yourself feeling worse than before. Do not eat an entire cannabis chocolate bar if you are new to edibles. Start with a small piece and then sit back and relax, wait to see how you feel before eating more. Start low (5mg of THC is lots for many people) and go slow.
Someone who uses cannabis frequently will likely experience edibles differently than someone who is more cannabis naive so if you're dining with a regular user, don't try to keep up with them. Pace yourself and remember the embarrassing story of Maureen Dowd, a New York Times writer who either ignored the advice of professional budtenders in Denver or didn't ask enough questions when she attempted to try edibles for the first time.
Maureen ate an entire candy bar and then proceeded to have an anxiety attack that couldnt have been any fun at all. She woul dhave avoided this if she had paced herself responsibly.
Processed sugars are empty calories that provide no nutritional benefit so if you're looking to medicate with edibles why not consider eating something that will not only act as a delivery mechanism for your medication but will also nourish your body?
Check out this Her(B) Life article written by Leighana Martindale about reducing the amount of bad for you ingredients in common edibles.
You should also meet Aly Francis who recently completed a successful Indiegogo campaign to launch The Baking Supply Co, a mail order service that provides you with recipes and ingredients to bake your own sugar and gluten-free infused treats.
At least not from the direct effects of consuming cannabis. So if you eat too much and are having an anxiety-riddled horrible experience take heart knowing that you will not die from it. I say this with confidence because no one has ever died from cannabis consumption. Ever. It has been said that a marijuana smoker would have to consume 20,000 to 40,000 times the amount of THC in a joint in order to be at risk of dying. That would take some serious dedication to pull off.
Overdosing is a possibility (see #s 1, and 2) but a cannabis overdose is not like an opiate overdose. In this case, "overdose" simply refers to taking too large a dose which may potentially give you an increased heart rate (problematic for those suffering a heart condition but not unlike ingesting higher levels of caffeine).
Let's lay out a strategy that you can turn to in the event that you ignore all my advice and go to town on a big cannabis brownie. If you begin to feel weird, anxious, experience an elevated heart rate or any other symptoms that suggest you've overdone it, the first thing you want to do is take some deep breaths and remind yourself that you will be just fine and that you will not die. Try to calm down and take a nap to sleep it off if you can.
If sleep isn't going to happen, try drinking some water. Staying hydrated and drinking lots of water will help flush the THC from your body. Try a soothing herbal tea (just not a cannabis-infused herbal tea).
Take a bath or a shower or go for a walk or get some exercise to release endorphins. The goal is to relax and distract yourself so if going outside seems impossible maybe you could cuddle up on the couch and watch a movie or listen to a podcast (my favourite way to chill out).
If you just need to come down from your high RIGHT NOW take a page from Neil Young's book and pop a couple of black pepper balls into your mouth to chew on. This Leafly article will explain the hows and whys of this particular trick but essentially it boils down to both black pepper and cannabis bind to the same receptors in your brain leading to a calming effect. If all else fails and you're feeling yucky it's worth a shot.