How to follow your accounts with the excel?
Hello to all of you.This is Lou from screenshot tuto. Let's start by opening
immediately a binder, to grasp the month of the year and in the tabs all
at the bottom we go between January and february march april etc ...
On the page of January we will enter the following columns
date, wording, debit, credit and calculate the balance thanks to the sigma icon that goes to me
allow to make a nap with this sum we are going to enter the formula
next We will subtract
flows and add the credits to get the balance of our
accounts. Then just do slide the mouse so that this cell
copy himself on subsequent cells. To insert
a line, you click insert and like here for example we're going
add 40 euros of water flow to our Monthly Budget
that's done and it's enough here too in balances to slide with the
mouse for the accounts be copied. You can improve
the visual of course from your book of tales and we will now copy
this budget on all subsequent months of the year is here. To keep the balance
month of the previous month you are looking for the last
balance line of the previous month, click on entry and your balance is updated
automatically on the following pages. To improve the visual of your
account book, you can improve the font writing, put in bold center
you can also merge and center your cells. What we will see
now is adding a link hypertext on your summary page. By
example for january we will search the tab corresponding to
January in the document, that's it, for do a little hyperlink that makes
when you are on the summary page, we click on January and we will
automatically arrive on the page that we are interested in our book of
accounts. it's January and I'm going
click on ok. Let's try everything from after,
wonderful, it works, you do not have more than to do your counts for the year
2019 I wish you all an excellent year.
If you liked, a little like. If you are not subscribed subscribe, and if
you subscribe, operate the bell. AT very soon for a new tutorial.
For more infomation >> [Tuto} Faire ses comptes avec Excel - Duration: 3:09.-------------------------------------------
Best And Worst Diets Of 2019, Including Keto And DASH | TODAY - Duration: 6:13.
For more infomation >> Best And Worst Diets Of 2019, Including Keto And DASH | TODAY - Duration: 6:13. -------------------------------------------
Bizarre Kevin Spacey Video Sparks Outrage | TODAY - Duration: 2:39.
For more infomation >> Bizarre Kevin Spacey Video Sparks Outrage | TODAY - Duration: 2:39. -------------------------------------------
Royals Spend Christmas Together Amid Rumors Of Tension | TODAY - Duration: 2:33.
For more infomation >> Royals Spend Christmas Together Amid Rumors Of Tension | TODAY - Duration: 2:33. -------------------------------------------
Look Back On The Craziest Things KLG And Hoda Did In 2018 | TODAY - Duration: 1:39.
For more infomation >> Look Back On The Craziest Things KLG And Hoda Did In 2018 | TODAY - Duration: 1:39. -------------------------------------------
Is Uber Profitable? Nope. - Duration: 7:18.
Chris Hill: Headline newsflash: "Dow sinks 500 points as Britain's Brexit mess fuels investor angst.
U.S. markets deepened their losses Monday as Britain's political crisis around Brexit
clouded investors' outlook.
British Prime Minister Theresa May delayed a key Parliamentary vote on her country's
exit from the European Union." Thanks! Taylor Muckerman: [laughs] Yeah, turns out
decisions made by the English still impact Americans.
Hill: Yes, they do. You asked me, "Why was the vote delayed?"
The only reason votes are ever delayed: because it wasn't going to pass.
Muckerman: They're not going to get what they want. Hill: Exactly. So, that's happening. Hopefully... [sighs]
Muckerman: You might have to talk about it again tomorrow.
Hill: You know what? It's oddly comforting to know that, when it comes to legislative bodies dealing with the
elected leaders of countries, it's not just the U.S. that can get messy now and then.
Alright, let's get to the first thing that we're going to talk about.
That's the recent filings of Uber and Lyft to go public.
Not just that these are two companies that have routinely showed up on the list of...
I mean, pick your list. Most anticipated IPOs, biggest private companies to consider going public.
But, they're in the same business. I'm curious how you think about these two.
I say they're in the same business, you dig a little deeper, the way that they have set
up their businesses, they appear to be going after different things.
Muckerman: It seems like that.
When you look at these companies, Uber, the biggest, the first, about 4X the size if you
look at employee count worldwide. But its losses in the last quarter were also 4X as large.
They reportedly lost $1 billion in the last quarter. Lyft lost about $250 million.
Like you mentioned, Uber, not only is it bigger and older, but it is also trying new things.
They purchased a bicycle rideshare company Jump recently.
They have Uber Eats, which is a massive network inside of Uber.
Also, they're partnering with Toyota, invested $500 million to start putting some Uber driverless
technology into their minivans. A little bit larger than Lyft, but Lyft is following suit nicely.
Uber might have had a chance to put the nail in the coffin for Lyft last year, but we all
saw the problems that erupted within Uber.
Sexual harassment allegations, allegations that they stole IP from Alphabet.
Then, other allegations that they were skirting regulators. I think they missed their chance.
Lyft was able to raise more money.
Now they might go public, they might go public before Uber, raising a significant amount
to then broaden their business, potentially.
While Uber has the lead in pretty much every category, I think they might have missed their
opportunity to really stake their claim as No. 1.
Yes, they do have over 60% market share in the U.S. vs. roughly 30% for Lyft.
But I think this is going to be an ecosystem, at least domestically, where they both coexist
and can start to thrive if they're held more accountable by public shareholders.
They've been just burning cash every single quarter with only the private eye watching them.
Hill: Lyft has absolutely taken advantage of the opening that Uber gave them in the
wake of the whole Travis Kalanick debacle, in ways that, in a completely different industry,
Pizza Hut has not taken advantage of the problems at Papa John's.
Muckerman: Somehow. Hill: Yeah. So, kudos to Lyft for doing that.
In terms of, which one is going to go public first, long-term, does that matter?
A lot is being made in the financial media of -- and, I understand it, if you're in the
business of writing headlines -- the race to go public first. They're two ride-sharing companies.
I get it. But I look at it and go, OK.
If you put a gun to my head and asked me, "Which one went public first, Dropbox or Box?"
I have no idea. I think long-term, it probably doesn't matter all that much.
Or, is it something where, yeah, short-term, it doesn't matter, but long-term, it actually does?
Muckerman: Short-term it could, just based on the hype around the IPOs.
Maybe people get burned out on the one that comes second if they already spent a ton of
their money allocated towards ride-sharing, I guess, however these portfolio managers might look at it.
But I can only see this as being an advantage for the company that goes first if it came
out of nowhere and the second company was caught completely flat-footed, but they're
going to be IPO-ing in a relatively similar timeframe.
So, yeah, I don't think that one's going to have a necessary advantage in terms of putting
that newfound capital to use in any specific way.
You might have a little bit lackluster of ribbon-cutting for the second one, but I don't
foresee it being a big deal for investors if you're looking at a multi-year time horizon.
Hill: Have you seen anything thus far that gets you more interested in one over the other?
Muckerman: As a user, I've stuck with Uber for the most part, so I guess my allegiance would be right there.
But I think that Lyft has been a little bit more focused.
They've kept themselves out of the negative PR circus that Uber has found itself in,
and has kind of gotten itself out of, but there's still some overhanging there from public perception,
as well as the way that they've treated their drivers.
But, whichever company is able to create the better ecosystem for not only its users,
but its drivers as well, that one will probably treat investors better in the long run.
Right now, I don't necessarily have a favorite. It just depends on if you want the scale that Uber has.
But it's not making more money. The margins aren't significantly better.
Operationally, you could go either way.
Hill: To go back to something you said earlier about the pressures of being a public company,
because there are significantly more pressures for public companies than private companies,
I could see that being ramped up on Uber more so than Lyft -- put aside all the stuff with
Kalanick -- simply by virtue of the fact that they're trying so many more things.
If both these companies go public, and you're an institutional shareholder putting pressure
on Lyft, it's really about operational stuff.
With Uber, it's more like, "Look, can you scale back the food delivery stuff and just focus on this?"
Muckerman: Yeah, because they made a huge bet on driverless technology.
Maybe that doesn't work out.
Maybe they should have just waited and then licensed driverless technology from a Waymo
or other companies that are out there excelling way more at this.
That's their singular focus in a lot of ways. Hopefully, they can stay on the right track.
It appears that they're starting to be.
-------------------------------------------
What Happened With CAR-T Stocks in 2018 - Duration: 3:44.
Shannon Jones: The CAR-T hype train has officially left the station here in 2018.
2017 was really all about CAR-T stocks.
The reason why there was so much hype was because it was this new, innovative approach
to supercharge the body's own immune system to fight and target cancer.
Well, as we have seen with many biopharma stocks along the way, just getting to approval
is the first hurdle of many. CAR-T stocks is no different.
Todd, CAR-T is just not yet that billion-dollar blockbuster that we were hoping to see.
Todd Campbell: It's a great reminder, Shannon, of how oftentimes, the pre-launch expectations
are just too optimistic.
Everybody thought that these therapies, which are incredibly complex, and they're incredibly
expensive -- what, over $500,000 all in to have these gene therapies given to patients.
Yeah, it takes a long time to get these things launched, build up momentum for them.
Maybe that's what we saw here in 2018. You have these great expectations coming into the year.
You had Gilead Sciences go out and buy Kite Pharma, spending nearly $12 billion to get
its hands on that CAR-T. Its sales this year, year to date, are only $183 million.
Then, you've got Novartis' Kymriah. They developed that one in-house and launched it last year.
Its sales this year are only about $48 million.
You've got less than $250 million in sales through the third quarter for CAR-T drugs
that are on the market.
And that is, like you said, very shy of the blockbuster hype that was associated with these drugs.
Jones: Yeah. I think some of the challenges with CAR-T, they certainly haven't been exclusive to CAR-T,
but when you consider that you're taking a patient's T cells, taking them out of the body,
then you're actually genetically modifying them in a lab and then putting them back into
a patient, you can imagine the logistical steps that are required.
Also, the manufacturing variability from patient to patient.
And, of course, that also depends on the patient's health.
That can change, too. Just the challenge of logistics.
Oftentimes, these patients also are in an inpatient setting, so they're hospitalized
while they are receiving this CAR-T treatment. The cost, you mentioned $500,000.
That goes up exponentially when you start talking about all the other acute care costs
that are associated with that, too.
Campbell: Yeah, and I think that for investors listing and saying, OK, yeah, these CAR-Ts
haven't lived up to expectations this year, what could happen next year in 2019?
Obviously, now we're getting more data in that shows that these therapies are still durable.
At ASH earlier this month, Yescarta had data that showed that 39% of patients still were
in response after two years. That's good.
You see durability like that, that helps to increase confidence in doctors using it and payers using it.
So maybe you get a nice little slower-than-hoped build in sales in 2019 that you want to keep an eye on.
Jones: Absolutely. And certainly, keep an eye on the reimbursement end of things.
These drugs have had challenges just getting reimbursed by public and private payers.
That'll be another issue.
But, yes, I do think things will slowly turn around for CAR-T stocks.
-------------------------------------------
6 Ways Mary Poppins Returns IGNORED Mary Poppins (1964) - Duration: 7:52.
Mary Poppins may be practically perfect in every way, but Mary Poppins Returns has made
some interesting changes that actually contradict some of the details and events from the original
movie.
Yippee-ki-yay, movie lovers, I'm Jan and today I'm revealing six ways that Mary Poppins Returns
ignored what happened in the first film and I'll also explain why.
Some mild spoilers ahead though I avoid any significant plot reveals.
A snow globe of St Paul's Cathedral made a memorable appearance in the original movie
when Mary Poppins used it in the "Feed The Birds" lullaby she sang to young Michael and
Jane.
And that snow globe pops up again in the sequel, along with the wooden letter blocks and kite,
when the now adult Michael is searching through the attic for something he's lost.
The snow globe in this scene is used as a nostalgic way to remind us and Michael of
his time with Mary Poppins, and when he comments that he doesn't know why they've kept any
of this stuff, it shows us he's lost his child-like wonder.
The problem with this little easter egg though is that it's almost impossible for Michael
to still have that snow globe because, in the original movie, Mary Poppins took it with
her when she left the Banks family.
Yes, the magical nanny actually put the snow globe into her carpet bag, together with all
her other belongings, just before her departure, and unless she's been making secret visits
to Michael's attic to hide snow globes there during the 20-odd years since she was last
in Cherry Tree Lane, then it shouldn't have appeared there in the sequel!
When a robin accompanied Mary as she sang A Spoonful of Sugar to the Banks children
in the original movie, it was a delightful little moment.
But as sweet as that song/scene is, it's also guilty of a goof because despite the movie's
London setting, the robin that perches itself on Mary's fingers is an American robin which
is much larger than the European robin found in England.
The sequel actually fixes the original error via the decorative robin on Mary's hat, which
this time around is a European robin with a much smaller red breast than its American
cousin.
So, the new robin isn't just a fun easter egg to "A Spoonful of Sugar", but also a neat
little way of correcting that movie mistake from the first film.
Now, we've gotta talk about how Emily Blunt has introduced a Mary Poppins with a quite
distinct character to Julie Andrews' version in the original movie.
I think it's great that Blunt decided to create her own Mary rather than try and imitate what
Julie Andrews did, because, as Blunt herself has said, "No one is ever going to out-Julie
Julie Andrews."
I mentioned previously, in my comparison video, how Emily Blunt looked to author P.L.
Travers' Mary Poppins books for inspiration.
And in those books, the magical nanny is much more abrasive and ruder than the generally
more kind but firm character so many of us grew to love in Julie Andrews.
And that's why when Mary Poppins comes back in the sequel, she's got a slightly weirder
edge to her and you could say she comes across as a bit sharper.
We even see a somewhat more risqué side to Mary during her performance of the song "A
Cover Is Not The Book", where she drops her new very posh pronunciation for a Cockney
accent and sings lyrics laden with adult humour.
The very prim-and-proper nanny we met in the original movie is nowhere to be found during
this vaudevillian song-and-dance number.
In other words, this is not your childhood Mary Poppins!
When Mary Poppins returns in the new movie, so does her talking umbrella, but this time
around the parrot umbrella is quite different.
First of all, its colour has changed from green to a deep almost reddish brown colour.
And, secondly, it's also a lot more chatty.
In the original Mary Poppins film, the umbrella was silent throughout and only spoke at the
end to complain that the Banks children weren't grateful enough and to slightly scold Mary
for not admitting how much she really cared about the family.
"Practically perfect people never permit sentiment to muddle their thinking."
"Is that so?
Well, I'll tell you one thing Mary Poppins, you don't fool me a bit."
"Oh really?"
"Yes really.
I know exactly how you feel about these children."
"And if you think I'm keeping my mouth shut any longer..."
"That will be quite enough of that, thank you."
I imagine many people were pleasantly surprised when the parrot suddenly spoke for the first
time at the end of the 1964 film, and I think the creative team behind Mary Poppins Returns
realised the comic potential of giving the parrot umbrella a bigger talking part this
time around.
So, in the new movie, the umbrella gets a number of nice moments including some choice
comedic lines and a funny little interaction with Dick van Dyke, which is part of the plot.
However, the parrot's reply that 'Grown-ups forget, they always do', when Georgie asks
why his father doesn't believe that Mary Poppins arrived on a kite, makes me think the new
film has also given the parrot some aspects of the talkative jackdaw in PL Travers' Mary
Poppins books.
In the first book, for example, the jackdaw tells two of the Banks children that as kids
grow up they forget all about the magical things that happened.
As for the parrot's new look, the movie's production designer has said about the film
that "we want people to feel like they're seeing something they've seen before, but
[they're] really seeing it for the first time."
Fun fact, in the 1964 movie, the parrot umbrella was voiced by David Tomlinson, who also played
the children's father, while in Mary Poppins Returns, the voice is provided by Edward Hibbert,
who's best known as the snooty restaurant critic Gil from the TV sitcom Frasier.
Next, it's time to show how the sequel's new timeline has messed with Mary Poppins' age,
possibly confirming a popular fan theory that Mary Poppins may well, in fact, be a time
lord!
For anyone who doesn't know, the first Mary Poppins movie was set in 1910 and Julie Andrews
was 28 at the time of the US release.
However, Mary Poppins Returns is set in the 1930s, in Depression-era London, so the events
take place around 20 to 30 years after the first film.
Emily Blunt, though, is only 35, just seven years older than Julie Andrews was at the
time.
Of course, actors don't just play their own real age, but generally have a certain range
within which they're able to act convincingly.
However, whichever way you look at it, Emily Blunt doesn't look anything like 48 to 58
years old, which is what Mary Poppins would be based on Andrews' age at the time and if
Mary Poppins had aged 20 to 30 years like the time-gap between the two stories.
All in all, it seems that Mary Poppins has barely aged, even though the Banks children
have completely grown up, as has Jack, who knew Mary when he was a child.
The sequel knows this – and to be fair – owns the inconsistency, making a joke of it:
"Good heavens, it really is you!"
"You seem to have hardly aged at all."
"Really?!
How incredibly rude!"
"One never discusses a woman's age Michael.
Would have hope I'd taught you better."
As for the official explanation, the movie's producer Marc Platt has said that "Mary's
a character who lives outside of time.
She's magic.
And so she is the one character who actually doesn't age."
Admiral Boom and his first mate Mr Binnacle both return for what is actually a slightly
bigger part in the sequel.
Although the pair still fire their cannon to mark the time, in Mary Poppins Returns
there's a running joke about how they're no longer reliable, which is very different to
the reputation Boom had built up about his timekeeping in the original movie:
"What he's famous for is punctuality."
"The whole world takes its time from Greenwich, but Greenwich takes its time from Admiral
Boom."
When the sequel begins, we discover that Boom and Binnacle's cannon fire now runs consistently
late when measured against Big Ben, although Boom actually believes it's Big Ben that's
wrong!
While this is certainly a change from the 1964 film, if you've seen the new movie, you'll
know that Boom's time difference with Big Ben is part of the plot, though I won't spoil
the details.
And in a little further explanation of this change, the movie's novelisation also adds
that the admiral 'had slowed down in his later years and his sense of time had slowed with
him.'
Well, it's fun to spot these little differences, but you should know that Mary Poppins "never
explains anything", so we can probably put these changes down to Mary's magic.
Now, what do you think were the best and worst parts of the sequel?
Let me know in the comments below!
And if you enjoyed this, smash that subscribe button and notification bell so you don't
miss any new videos.
Next up, tap left to find out all the amazing details you missed in Mary Poppins Returns
or tap right for another Mary Poppins video you're sure to like.
Thanks for watching and see ya next time.
Yippee-ki-yay, movie lovers!
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét