Great. I have the fantastic honor and the great pleasure here to introduce to you someone without a presentation. Can you push that button please? Because something will be happening. This is Hendrik Eubler. I pronounce his right. Good enough. Good enough. And he's actually studying in London currently living there in the British environment and from that perspective in a kind of Gonzo journalism style, can I say? Tries to solve one little question. How did Great Britain, how did the UK end up in a situation where they had a snooper's charter? Presumably some of you don't know what the snooper's charter is, but the snooper's charter is actually about the sneaking charter that the British government decided to get into. He's going to give you an introduction to that kind of situation. It's a very uncomfortable situation and he will explore it from the inside out. Please give a warm welcome. Light the fuse. Put it in play. Let's roll. Hi, so I'm living in London. I'm studying there and I'm not a legal expert. I'm not a technical expert, but I do try my best to figure out why we end up with a situation where we have a surveillance law that many think of at maybe the craziest we have ever seen in democracy. But I want to start with this picture. Every other week on the way to university I encounter something like this. It's a mobile CCTV unit and if you haven't seen on top of it is a camera. And in London, there's approximately one camera per person living there, but there's still the need for a car with a camera on top of it. And this is only the old model. The new one has six cameras around it and more equipment inside. So for me, it was a pressing question. How can a country where this is the more or less unchallenged status quo publish and make a law about regulating and re-establishing the whole surveillance regime we've encountered the past years. So what I'm going to do in the next half hour is first give us a sense of what this new law is. It's so-called Investigatory Powers Act. And of course, why is it so dangerous? Why should we be concerned? And then maybe the more interesting part is I'm trying to explore how a democracy can pass such a law. How a democracy can end up at a situation where a majority supports such a law and learning from that experience how we could fight back, how we can educate our decisions. And of course, with the first part, we start. Then Home Secretary, Theresa May, introduced the bill in 2015, late 2015. And the bill really touches upon all different sorts of surveillance on hacking, interception of communication, access to data sets, internet data retention, encryption, and of course, it re-regulates supervision. And recently, the government described the bill as a bill that provides some of the strongest protections and safeguards anywhere in the democratic world with an approach that sets new standards for openness, transparency, and oversight. That's a bold statement. And we will see if that holds true in the next minutes. But because it's such an exceptional law, I will go over each of the different areas individually and we'll start with hacking. The government doesn't quite call it hacking. It calls it with a wonderful euphemism, equipment interference. And it's available to regional and national police, GCHQ, MI5, MI6, so the usual suspects. And the normal procedure, every warrant issued for hacking needs the approval of a so-called judicial commissioner. The person supposed to increase protection to prevent overreach. But that's very questionable, as I explain later when I get to the supervision part. And the reasons for which such a warrant can be issued is a very, very broad interest of national security, purpose of preventing crime, or interest of economic well-being as so far in the interest of national security. But you can see very, very broad terms you're dealing with here. And if you're not in situate on the British Isles, the British authorities might even issue a bulk warrant. So with a single warrant, give the ability or allow a certain agency to hack a whole number of devices in a regional or for a group of people. And one such warrant is obtained, the means with which the desired information can be extracted are unrestricted, any conduct which it is necessary to undertake. So the restrictions placed on the different agency are extremely little. That means, for example, if the British government believes that there's a terrorist group in Stockholm planning an attack on Great Britain, it could potentially issue a bulk warrant to hack devices in the whole city to find out this or to listen to this group. And this power of surveillance goes hand in hand with the next topic, which is Interception of Communication, which whether the who and how and when of the approving of the warrant is very similar to the hacking regime. And it's rather surprising after years of knowing or after years of reports being published that the different agencies misused their power of interception. In this new bill, this power was reinforced, reinstituted. And again, if one of the members of the communication is not in British Isles, we can issue a whole bulk warrant. But in this context, we also need to talk about encryption, because interception and encryption go hand in hand, of course. And the legislation listened to concerns that strong legal protections and support for encryption. No. Business can be asked to help circumvent encryption, actually. And it even goes so far as to say that if you are developing a certain kind of encryption technology, the government might give you a notice and then you need to inform the government of any plan changes for the future. So, of course, they have time to adapt their technology to your increase in technology. Interesting approach, I would say. The next part is the access to data set. And what this means is it's available to only the Secret Service, not to the police services, but it gives them the power to analyze and access public as well as private data sets and also create them or combine them to come up with new analyses. And that means, for example, the next time you visit your GP, you might need to consider that the information he has about you are also available to a government agency, or all the information you give to your fitness tracker might at the time be analyzed by a government agency. And there are some further limitations in the bill and the court of practice, but it explicitly states that many innocent people will be affected by this kind of analysis. Now, the danger of affecting many innocent people is also imminent to the next and maybe most outrageous part of the bill, which is the so-called internet connection records. And put simply there, data retention on steroids. If you visit any website that your internet connection providers now need to save for one year, the domain you visit, when you visit it, from which device, where, and further metadata. And messenger services might need to do the same. So also they save them, who you contacted, when, from which device, where that person was located. Now, this sounds like a very powerful tool and you might think that only a handful of people have access to this kind of surveillance technology. Well, I've listed all the departments having access to it. They're 48. And my favorites are the Department of Health, the Food Science Agency, the Gambling Commission, and of course, how what we do without it, if they hadn't had access to the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service and Health and Social Care Trust. So another comes to the best point, you don't need the approval of a judge. You just need the approval of a senior officer in your department to access this data. That's actually true. But if this data is allowed to yield such power, how are these powers controlled? We have this wonderful new investigatory powers commission, which unifies the work of three previous bodies. And those were commissions on different kinds of interception and different kinds of surveillance measures. This new commission unifies this work. And normally, one commissioner needs to give his approval for issuing a warrant, like the hacking warrant or the interception warrant. And this is the so-called double lock system, where not only the state secretary needs to approve a warrant, but also a judicial commissioner. Now, it's good to have something like a supervision, but we need to keep in mind the old men, sorry. All members are appointed by the prime minister. And I have very good faith in theories I made to only put people there, which you can trust. And I also doubt that this commission is able to exercise powerful scrutiny. In 2014, the Guardian published half a million authorizations for interception warrants were issued. And then if your commission has less, say, than 100 people working a normal 40-hour week, you only have several minutes to look over each warrant and assess whether or not to give its approval. So I have very, very high doubts this commission can exercise powerful scrutiny. Nevertheless, this commission was declared a great improvement over the previous situation. And other often cited improvements are increased transparency because you have codified these surveillance measures. See, it's improvement if you do something previously unlawfully, and now you have it by law. You also have increased safeguards because you have unified the legislation and control mechanisms. I doubt that's very helpful if these control mechanisms aren't very effective. And thirdly, accessing data without a warrant is no criminal offense. That's good. I mean, that's something, but should rather be the status quo instead of something we ask for, right? And lastly, the House of Lords in late summer was able to include another improvement, which I need to show you. I don't know who thinks can find it, the great improvement. It's this. It's the first sentence setting out that this bill may be used to interfere with privacy. So the great improvement was that they now have reinstated that this interferes with privacy and therefore have said that they want to respect privacy, and this is the first sentence, so it must be very important.  I spent lots of my time on the right building. It's the Sandhouse Library in London, and incidentally, it's also the building that inspired George Orwell for the Ministry of Truth in his favorite novel, 1984, and you can really see why. And I know I would be called an innocent citizen, I've done nothing to really weaken the state power. I wrote some articles against it like any student. I went to protests, I'm holding this talk, very rebellious, but because of the new regime, I don't know how I'm viewed. I might need to adapt my actions just because I think they have such a great power that it's reasonable for me now to adapt my actions, even though I've done nothing that should concern anyone. And precisely because this new law is no longer a measure against the threat of terrorism, where I had the moral excuse of, well, that doesn't affect me anyway. Now, this is really a measure against crime in all sorts of ways. And on top of all of that, we have the realization from Snowden that we cannot trust these agencies, specifically the British agencies to remain inside the boundaries of the law. And even though this law puts nearly no boundaries on them, I rather have them than not, but I can't trust the agencies to stay inside these boundaries. Now, internationally, you might say that this is just part of a larger trend, unfortunately, because we've seen, for example, Germany and other countries not taking the hint from Snowden to maybe rethink a surveillance regime, but rather reinforce the surveillance regime. But this law in particular is in scope and size unmatched by any other regime in a democratic country. Neither the Patriot Act nor the emergency measures in France include such far-reaching and intrusive measures. And I would say very ironically, this delegitimizes our criticism or the criticism of our state hats of other despotic and undemocratic regimes for censoring their internet, for surveying them, because a country in the midst of us is doing the very same, and China has already pointed to this law in defense of its own mechanisms and surveillance measures. Now, the reason may set this, if you remember, and I don't really agree with it, I think this is wrong, this doesn't really fit. I'd rather say this bill establishes the most intrusive surveillance measures anywhere in the democratic world, and it attacks the principles of openness, transparency, and oversight. But now having understood the extent of the bill, I wanna ask the next question, how can democracy pass such a law? And for that, I first wanna give you a quick look how the British democracy works. We have a parliament that's made up of the sovereign, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, where the sovereign is the queen, but she doesn't really interfere with politics. The last time she did it, she caused somewhat of a civil war. The House of Lords isn't really important either, it's really the House of Commons being the most important part in the system. And another really important point to understand is that the UK isn't governed by constitution, but rather by custom and common law. That means that there's not a single document that regulates who has how much power and where the boundaries, but it's rather a system of experience, of the expectation that different actors will behave the same as they did before. That is combined with the first pass to post electoral system. That means the whole UK is divided into different districts and to win the civil majority in these districts, represents the district and parliament, or in the House of Commons. And that has produced a very powerful House of Commons controlled by the Conservative Party, who got 37% of the votes, but 51% of the seats, and because there's not really any need for a two-thirds majority to change anything, that gives a total control over things. And that leads us to the next question, why was the law passed? Well, the simple answer is other laws were expiring and they had to pass a new law, and the previous bill was also blocked by then-collision partner, the Liberal Democrats. And now with the new government, they didn't need to rely on them anymore. Additionally, the Labour Party was in opposition and simply didn't put up a fight. It actually voted in favour of the bill. The bill passed with a majority that's rather reminiscent of North Korea. And the Labour Party really seemed to me, at least, distracted by its own power fights in the leadership to solicit its own party and lost the sight of this important fight. And later the House of Lords, the second chamber, didn't really improve much. Well, this is only the meta-analysis, and I wanted to rather understand why does the Conservative Party think that such law is needed? Why does a democracy think this law is a sensible measure? And the first thing to understand, I think this is my first hypothesis, is that the political culture in the UK is based on trust. If you have a political system in which there's no constitution, in which for hundreds of years, for centuries, things stayed the same because they always stayed the same, trust in the system and trust in the diligent behaviour of your opponent is essential to the working of the state. That, of course, also leads to a long tradition of thinking, if you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to hide, because if everybody is behaving so in a way to preserve the democracy, you have nothing to hide from it because everybody is just behaving in a good way and trying to do his so-and-so best. Secondly, the political system puts the focus on other topics. We have the two large parties, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party, who are able to win certain districts based on this old kind of US two-party system where cities' Labour Party wins and rural regions' Conservative Party wins. And then there are some other parties, some regional parties, like the Scottish National Party or Northern Irish Party, and they succeed in winning their districts and their regions. And their focus obviously lies on representing this region, of representing their local communities. But what this doesn't do is say there's 10 to 15% of the people really interested in these topics, really angry about these laws, where they have no way of being represented in Parliament, if in all the different districts they only have 10% of the votes. That way, they can't really have a platform in Parliament. And thirdly, especially in this year, all the attention, the media attention, and also our attention was dominated by the Brexit referendum and the US election. Maybe incidentally, the bill was passed between the high time of the Brexit referendum and the US election, but that's only, I can only guess, probably in incidents. But what this created was that the public outcry that ensued was too late. Only after the bill was already passed, there was a petition of more than 204,000 people to challenge it again. That was too late. But no one has been, had been listening to the debate except for a very small circle of people. Now, I think you have now a good idea of why the law passed and I wanna put forward some ideas what we can learn from it, how we can find against it. Well, first of all, it's a simple solution. It's a technological solution. We can use VPNs to protect against the interconnection records. We can prepare against hacking. We can use encryption impossible, and so on and so forth. These are measures to have been long tested and most of you, I guess, are able to do just these things but I don't think that this is a long-term solution. And I don't think it's a solution for all of society. It works for me, it works for us, but it doesn't work for all of society because if we're honest, most of the people will not invest hours and hours in putting up these systems. So what we really need to come up with is a system that works for all, a response that doesn't only protect us but puts the discussion on a different playing field. And the first thing is, go to the courts. Some weeks ago, I think, I hope many of you have heard of it, the ECJ rejected in a great decision a large part also of this bill, even though it wasn't challenged directly in court, the infamous part of the interconnection records will most likely not stand up to the decision of the European Court of Justice. And there are certain rights, we have those rights and we need to tell it, we need to go to the courts and defend them. Either ask or give money to people who do it for us because these decisions affect all of society. Secondly, and maybe we need to take some time to explain this point, we are currently in a position where many people want more security and we have many people who have come up with the idea that more access to data will lead to more security. Now, I can genuinely believe that sometimes more access to data would have prevented a murder or would have prevented that sort of crime. But once we're in this narrative, we lose the sight for other forms of increasing our security. And I suggest we try to a tier strategy. Once trying to decrease this will of increasing failed security because I normally feel quite secure and maybe we just need to make everybody else feel more secure to end this vicious circle. And maybe a second part, something that's not often discussed is maybe we can come up with different ideas how to stimulate this desire, how to increase security while not sacrificing our digital rights. And the next point comes back to the point of trust in a democracy. How do we view government intrinsically? If I have many discussions with friends in London, yes, they criticize this bill but they have such a trust in the government that they won't misuse it that there's not really any progress in the discussion. So one of the I think major challenges is for us to make it possible to view the state as a threat and a delusion actor because it must be both and we must be able to raise the first and say this could be a threat and also use the state in other scenarios. And this is very difficult to paint not a good or a bad picture. And this is a very difficult challenge we may all need to engage in. How exactly I'm open to any suggestions. Next on list, I think we need to make our systems more representative. What I said earlier about the UK system is that some parties are over represented and other opinions are under represented. And making the systems more representative is the very easy solutions to give critics a larger platform. But what it also does is give, if we are already chipping away our substantial rights at least the majority is doing it. I think that's something we should all agree on that not 37% should be allowed to do it should be at least the majority. And of course, going back to the critics I don't think if we give critics a larger platform that these kind of laws would be passed. And lastly, I think, I especially need to work on my attention because I was blinded by the Brexit referendum by the US election. It really sucked me in it. It was a spectacle, it was a media spectacle and I like many others lost the side of the things around us for not really here but for a very long time. And I certainly have to learn to diversify my attention and also to diversify my actions. And this is maybe then the challenge to also make others diversify their attention and not be blinded by these spectacles we see nowadays in the international media. That's it. I hope you've got some good ideas from this, some suggestions and learn some interesting lessons about this new bill. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you, Hendrik. This is once again a situation whereby we have to reboot the system. You actually, the moment you came up with the why question I was immediately thinking about why do dogs lick their balls? And the answer there is because they can. So you get in a situation that the system is rolling out and no one actually can do anything about it seems. Yeah, I think the incentives in the system are laid out in a way that it develops in this direction. It doesn't need to, but if we don't challenge the incentives the development is imminent. So this is a call for action as well again? You're taking action as a journalist, I understood. I'm writing as long as I find time for Nets4Tik.org. I also did an internship there. I really enjoyed it. All right guys, go there to check out these publications. We have some questions from the audience I suppose. Firstly, practically try to take this door as exit. Please, sir, go ahead. Thank you. I have two questions, first question. You mentioned that they have to detain the domain. Is that to understand in a technical way that they have to domain the domain name like DNS or is it also for IP addresses? So if I set up my website just on an IP address will that be detained or not? I wish I could answer the question. I hear yes from here. I guess I know that the IP addresses are safe. So I guess this is, because I didn't end with it. They say everything is safe. Yes, exactly. Everything before the last slash. So I suppose it's just using HTTP data. Don't do other protocols like what I know, Bitcoin or something like that? I'm sorry, I wouldn't know the answer. That's maybe something we have to get to know in court. Something, some of these things, as I said, are no challenge by the ECJ. I wish I could give you a better answer. Okay, and my second question is, I would listen to your opinion about how do you think we as outsiders as European Union or even maybe even far should react? What do you think about, especially about sanctions? Could we use sanctions to influence UK? Because as I see as an outsider, I don't have any rights and they can inspired me at all. So I think that's harmful for me and maybe some of my government would put some sanction on UK, it could influence them or whatever. I don't think that that could work in a positive manner. Because of many, many motivations. And one of them is that instead of having a positive effect, I would rather see a retaliatory effect of these sanctions. I don't think that the British government, just because they have these measures and the majority of things that they're good, the problem isn't that only they lead things as a good measure, but we have certain poets from Yugov saying that the majority of people actually supported the bill. That doesn't mean they support, they know what's in it. But I think it's more important to change public opinion instead of just putting pressure on the state system. Well, but wouldn't that have some pedagogic influences of the people too? And also, I mean, well, let's think we're making easily some sanction to Russia and I think they are, yeah, how to tell? I mean, I think that should be, at least for the outsiders, some soft sanctions. I mean, they don't have to make the bad things, but how about the tax as a valence tax? Because I mean, for all the security or let's think arm, Armisen UK company and why not putting some little money on top of that? Because I don't know whether there is some things put in which will wiretap my mobile phone because I have an arm process or so. I think as outsiders, we should also be active in this way. And also, of course, in our own choice. Can you just get to the question and otherwise? No, the second one was just kind of an idea. It's a suggestion, yes. But thank you. We have a question from outer space. I noticed. Yeah, the first question was, are there foreign services or companies widely used by UK citizens and not conforming with the UK laws? Are they blocked? Well, first, there are some special regulations on foreign businesses. For example, it's not possible to issue public warrants to foreign businesses. Only case-by-case issues is possible. And there is some talk of definitely fines and other measures that government is able to take if these companies do not oblige to the government, if they are given notice. It was another question. Yes? Yeah, you're born from space, I mean. Yeah, the next question was, similar law just got passed, parliament in the Netherlands and is due to be treated in the Senate. What advice do you have on exposing the lies governments used to get these types of laws passed? Everything before the slash or after the slash. That's the answer, I think. Let's take the other question there. May I? Because we can discuss this for hours. A question, a direct one. We don't have that much time. OK, it is a direct question. You talked about a more representative system that would help to impede with such laws. But I have a slight fear that also more representation could also be used as a tool for populists, because as we know, the prime minister, that we all know are not that much in favor of, was elected democratically. So what kind of more representation do you mean and how would you try to find a way that populists couldn't use this tool? First, I was not trying to use the word making it more democratic, because it very much depends on how you define your democracy. And with representative, I meant making it more representative of national opinions, of the national distribution of opinions. So right now, though, you can make an error index of how many votes did that party get, how many percentage votes, and how many seats, or how many percentage of seats did it get in parliament. And in the UK, this measure is a 44% error. So 44% of the seats are somewhere, so not in accordance with a public vote. And yes, that means parties that didn't get into parliament or that got there and have no more percentage seats as votes. And if you add up all the differences, you get it to a really high number. I think if the public is on our side on defending our rights, and I think this is something we need all to engage in and make it possible, and this is the case, we shouldn't fear populist, because then it's a majority opinion. But more importantly, I think if we have, or if parliament can be a platform for parties that challenge these things on a constructive level, we can magnify the impact of the criticism to a larger extent than just populist reframing the security narrative. I have the question here. Please, sir. Thank you. You mentioned that one of the things we should work with is making sure that people actually understand the privacy impact of the Charger. So would you agree that privacy has gotten out of fashion, and what do you suggest we do about it? I wouldn't say that privacy has got out of fashion, but rather people view it differently. So I think most people have the same idea of privacy if we think of an analog world, the same sense of privacy they had 50 years ago when they're in the house and they don't want someone looking through their windows. I think the challenge is much more to translate this sense of privacy to a world where there isn't this idea of, OK, I can see someone looking through my window. I don't think as much that the will to have a private sphere has changed, but rather that the idea of what my private sphere is has changed. And the only thing that helps is educating about the technologies we use and making people aware of the impact of their technologies. Good. Do we have time for more questions? I think, yes, the lady, please. Hello. So given the prevailing political atmosphere in the United Kingdom, Brexit means Brexit, red, white, and blue, Brexit, all of this nonsense, what do you think are the realistic chances of Theresa May taking the slightest notice of the recent ECJ decision and depending on your answer, what does this tell us, both about the campaign such as it was against the IP bill and what we do about it now? One of the positive scenarios is definitely that the government will say, well, we don't want the ECJ interfering with us. We don't know there was a decision by the ECJ, but because it was a Brexit, we reinforce our right to make our own laws. And they give it a 50-50 chance, depending on how fast Brexit is. You're much more of an optimist than I am. I'm sorry, I have to wrap up this. Thank you, Hendrik, for your fantastic speech here.


So good morning everybody. I'm very honored to have these 10 minutes of introduction Usually in a conference you get sold some kind of promotion In this case we will try actually to stimulate some criticism and critical thinking and some skepticism even What my presentation is about is why everything they told you about Bitcoin is a lie Of course some of you in the audience are pretty expert in this matter, some of you may not be And it's important to clarify before we start getting into depth with this topic That there is not just a lot of lack of information, there is a lot of absolutely wrong information Basically there is not just a lot of noise but a lot of negative signal in Bitcoin So most of the things if you approach Bitcoin mostly from the point of view of reading some article on the mainstream media Probably everything you have been told is kind of a lie, let's call it a misconception So let's see if it works, yeah So I'm in Bitcoin, I'm a theoretical physicist as an education, I'm in Bitcoin since 2013 And what I do is mostly consultancy also to banks and institutions and recently especially education You can find me at Het Jakomuzuk on Twitter or whatever, Telegram So the press, the general press gets Bitcoin wrong mostly for these reasons Because the press generally gets wrong things that are too new, they need some time In order to understand what's going on if something is new Bitcoin may seem old story, like 10 years But actually if you think about that, I mean the first experiments with the interim protocol were in the 70s And in the 80s the general press did not have any clue about the internet, not even in the 90s actually And the press is generally wrong and bad with things that are too technical Bitcoin is technical not just in a technological sense but also in an economical sense Bitcoin is a very subtile game of cryptography, applied cryptography, information security, game theory Monetary economics and monetary history, so it's difficult to get it right It's also very multidisciplinary, if you are a great cryptographer but you don't understand money Probably you get Bitcoin way less than somebody who has a good understanding of the purpose of money And the history of money but maybe is clueless about cryptography Then the second guy will understand Bitcoin but will lose all his Bitcoin because he doesn't understand how to store a key So you have to stay somehow in between The general press is also kind of bad at explaining things that hurt too many interests Bitcoin is disruptive, not like we are disruptive start-up, we are creating a new PayPal It is disruptive in a way that if it works could play out as very, very disruptive So the kind of status quo, I mean, I know that this sounds a little bit like a paranoid, tinfoil-hattered conspiracy theory But in the real world there are established interests and there is a cognitive bias to try to not understand the new things If the new things are threatening your interest a lot Maybe individuals can understand things that threaten their business model But organizations, for example, tend not to understand, I mean, Kodak usually cannot understand digital pictures Even if the single Kodak researchers do Blockbuster will not understand video streaming online even if a single researcher can understand it inside Blockbuster So as organizations usually establish interests tend to get wrong things that can threaten their interest Also Bitcoin is a thing that can create too much economic interest, too much economic attention Because there is money to be made, some people got rich, some people got rekt, some people got billionaire So everybody wants to sell you something, everybody wants your money There is basically a gold rush and during a gold rush scammers are everywhere And of course if you read a newspaper article you are reading something from a journalist That was basically exposed to a lot of snake oil salements and a lot of fraudsters Also general press is wrong in general If you are an expert, you know, there is something called the Murel Gelman, like forgetting, Abnesia If you are an expert in anything and you read something about that You understand that the general press is terrible at explaining that and mostly it tells everything upside down And then you turn the page, you read something you are not a specific expert in And then you get back believing it, like after just one page This is a typical phenomenon, so in Bitcoin that's even worse So what can you do to mitigate the level of noise or even to not just to learn something about Bitcoin But to unlearn everything you learned so far which is wrong Basically you have to become a little bit an expert yourself Unfortunately in this kind, I mean delegation for knowledge is a good thing It's good to delegate experts, it's something that we have to do, it's division of labor, it's okay But with something which is so new, so disruptive, so complex You don't have these excuses anymore You have to try to verify claims You have to try to fact check directly So it's hard, you cannot easily delegate experts because you don't know who the experts are The definition of experts is still circular, like one expert will tell you that the other expert is a fraud And vice versa, and they're both right So it's kind of difficult to navigate One very good clue that I can give you is consider the long run Try to get back to ancient history like 2014 Try to verify claim also in the long run So everybody, I mean every kind of blockchain technology works in the demo phase None of them works basically except one in the long run So when you are facing a claim You should try not just to verify the technical side of it but also the historical side Which other claims like that has been made in 2011 How many claims did that person make before that one So usually time is a gentleman And if you look at the big picture in the long run You can start to tell fraudsters from real researchers This is all you can do basically I will try to list some FPM, Frequently Propagated Myths about Bitcoin I will not try to debunk them now So now you have to trust me But then during the day or not But then during the day you will basically verify The first myth I would like to... Well, I will just basically list them First myth which is the complete opposite of reality Blockchain as a technology is fast, cheap and encrypted So you can use it to protect your data Actually blockchain is a technology that Bitcoin has to use It's necessary for Bitcoin layer one But it is extremely slow, extremely expensive And it's not encrypted at all Basically everybody has all the data with zero data protection So blockchain is terrible for the efficiency of your banking track record It's terrible for privacy It's terrible for easiness and efficiency Also there is this meme going around blockchain validating information That's not the case Blockchains do not validate information Blockchain only creates a relative chronology of information That can be true or false, right or wrong So everybody using blockchain to validate supply chain in food I mean, that doesn't make any sense Blockchain is the real deal It's not 99% of our research in Bitcoin right now Is how to avoid using the blockchain So what Bitcoin researchers are trying to do now Is to use Bitcoin without using the blockchain Or using the blockchain only when it's strictly needed And stay out of the blockchain every time we can With something like Lightning Network, Master, Taproot, Script to Script All these technical buzzwords just mean one thing We shouldn't use the blockchain if we can avoid it So tokens are decentralized, trustless and anonymous So everything you couldn't do before when you do an IPO Or when you do your public offer Because it's maybe it's a regulatory It's restricted from a regulatory point of view Now with tokens you can Because tokens are unstoppable They are decentralized There is no single point of failure They are not With the exception of one single token Which is called Bitcoin Any other experiment out there is fairly centralized Around a single team of development Around a marketing team especially With their face around So it's totally centralized The typical website promoting Unstoppable application right now The Ethereum Foundation website Basically it's about technology where they did Stop server application when they wanted to stop them So it's not about tokens Also tokens add value to the platform This is a typical crypto mantra So we're doing a new We're doing it like a new Tinder application But with tokens Usually tokens when you put them in your application They reduce the efficiency of your application And they introduce new friction Because now you have to take real money You have to buy this useless token And you have to spend this token In order to use something that you could use In the first place without the token So tokens are not a magic powder To increase the business effectiveness Of your application Usually they are just a friction point That has one purpose Buying Lamborghini for the creator of the token Tokenization People clapping as a Lamborghini All of them I know that So another myth I can list Is Bitcoin is only for bad people Bitcoin is a dodgy thing For the dark markets And that's the only thing That's not the case Bitcoin is actually the first asset class Which is entirely independent From political risk If it works I've been told there are some skeptics And that's very good We have to be I'm also skeptical about Bitcoin I know that Bitcoin could fail What comforts me is that I know that everything else will fail But... So in comparison But still Bitcoin is still an experiment And it's not just for bad people For example it's a non-correlated asset You can try to do a scientific study Of correlation with Bitcoin And physical gold Bitcoin is a little bit like digital physical gold But it's also like a brand Because gold doesn't have a brand Like if they rob a gold deposit It's not that gold price goes down Because there is a brand image While in Bitcoin there is a brand situation It's a technology Gold cannot really evolve technologically You cannot say I mean gold will go up Because we have the lightning network In Bitcoin there is a technological advancement perception So it's a mix of very different things And it's behaving differently So if you want to... Basically when you compose a portfolio And you want to manage your risk Decorrelation is something useful Not just for the dark market criminals But also for investors and institutions Bitcoin is actually not really anti-banks For other reasons we will discuss it a bit later It's mostly unfortunately anti-central banks I mean if you are a banker You can still make a lot of business around Bitcoin If you are a central banker Learn to code, do something So Bitcoin is not only for bad people There are also... But Bitcoin is not even the opposite Like somebody wants to sell you Bitcoin As the transparent ledger That the word finance will use Because it's completely legal Completely compliance It's not Bitcoin is a beer instrument And as such Can facilitate legal arbitrage Or even illegal things That's a fact Whenever you see somebody Or hear somebody denying that fact Like oh no Everything is on the blockchain We can trace everything forever Is lying or omitting something Bitcoin can be used for regulatory arbitrage And for illegal things The good news is that Not only legal things are bad things Basically every single action you perform Since this morning waking up Is illegal in some place of the earth From drinking... I don't know if coffee is illegal But I'm sure it was illegal Sometimes somewhere So every action is illegal And especially many, many actions That we do are illegal So there are a lot of people That in the so-called grey market Which is people that are not doing anything strange They are not selling drugs They are not trying to organize terrorist attacks They maybe want to sell lemonade But they don't have the specific permission To do that in some kind of jurisdiction And to be more explicit There is the absolute majority of people On planet earth right now They don't have access to a KYC-like identity For international finance Or international commerce So when you use e-commerce or e-banking You have to know very well That the total majority of people On this planet cannot be compliant With this kind of requirement So it's like a privilege requirement Which is not accessible for most people Bitcoin is accessible to everybody If you are a woman in Afghanistan And you cannot have a bank account You can have a Bitcoin address And nobody can actually stop you So it's not for regulatory compliance It's a beer instrument It means that it can be, for example It also changes the security assumption Because when you are storing in your bank Some kind of financial derivatives They are not beer instruments So no single employee can steal A derivative contract easily And hid it in its pocket With Bitcoin it's a little bit like gold bars So people can get away with that Also there is this myth That everybody will be their own banks That's maybe something Approximable in the long run But for the short run Many people will use Bitcoin speculatively Without wanting to become hackers Or cryptography experts So there will be a lot of intermediation In Bitcoin Mostly on the financial investment side A little bit less in the direct use side People who want to use Bitcoin Directly to avoid some kind of regulation Or to arbitrage some kind of regulation They will mostly have to learn How to do that Because any counterparty Will be easily censored But people who want to speculate Which is not a bad word On this technology disruption They will mostly use a third party Which in my opinion will not be Bitcoin startups But they will be mostly traditional banks Also, so one myth is Everybody is its own bank Is own bank The opposite myth is These Chinese miners control Bitcoin They control everything Actually even just when you read the newspaper That miners validate Bitcoin So you search for You Google Bitcoin right now You get some video Where you have some guy Spending Bitcoin on a mobile phone And then a network of miners Validating it That's the myth That's not how it works Miners do not validate Most of the people running miners They just use the node Of a central pool to validate They don't validate themselves While every single Bitcoin user In order to be sure he has been paid He has to validate independently So validation in Bitcoin Is not something delegated to mining farms All the things that mining farms do Is to create an opportunity cost For reversing the history But they can only ordinate valid transaction The validation of transaction Is not something miners do Miners cannot change the rule of Bitcoin They are not in control Okay, I go faster One typical myth is Bitcoin is too scarce So it will work But there is not enough of them Like just 21 million Of course many people Are still scared They still don't get the visibility And they are still affected by unit bias Like they are not enough Bitcoin For everybody That's not the case And the opposite myth is Bitcoin is too niche Nobody really wants it So it will fail Because there is no interest Last two myths Bitcoin will be hacked And failed Like there is a lot of Let's say There is a lot of overestimation Of technical threat to Bitcoin And a lot of underestimation Of the level of security Of Bitcoin technically Or Bitcoin will work And boil the oceans So basically the world will be destroyed Because Bitcoin will work too much A very good heuristic is If somebody is telling you That Bitcoin cannot work Because it will simultaneously Boil the oceans Because it is too much effective And be hacked And become ineffective I mean He has to choose Either it doesn't work Or it works too much So this is just Well, I will skip this Because it's late And this is where You can find me on some Like Twitter or Telegram If you have some questions And have a nice day And to the moon


You talked about kind of Super Bowl or cost. What's it feel like coming out of that one? I mean, it feels bad. Obviously, you don't really plan for moments like this. Kind of walking around the locker room, gave everybody a hug, told them I love them, and I appreciate all the effort. Day in and day out to get to this point. But it definitely sucks right now. It's kind of hard to reflect on kind of everything, but you know, it's didn't play well enough to win the ball game. And you know, just kind of just appreciative of the effort today from all phases. Obviously, it wasn't good enough, but at the end of the day, appreciate all the guys. But KB knowing how the guys played defensively, like a full season record tying nine sacks, the defensive effort, does that kind of make this one harder to swallow? Knowing that you guys kind of put it all out there? No, I mean, it makes it hard to swallow because we lost. Regardless of how many sacks we got, or how many plays the defensive made, in certain critical situations, we didn't make the play. And that's the type of things that I look at. I missed the tackle, let Jamar Chase get out of there. And I'm beating myself up about that. I'm not necessarily concerned about what the offense does. And obviously, we can't turn the ball over, but we could have got more turnovers as well. You know what I'm saying, especially early in the game. You know, it's a lot of different things like that. But I definitely am not going to let anything kind of divide the team, even though obviously the season's over with. And I told Ryan that too, that I appreciate him and all the work that he's put in this year and the plays that he's made for us. And they made some plays, some unfortunate plays. But at the end of the day, we're going to stick together as a family. And what's the finality like, Kevin, when you know this team won't do the same moving forward and is it almost a shock to the system in some way that it's over? Yeah, I mean, honestly, that's the toughest part about this business, especially, you know, some teams that know they're not going to the playoffs. They're kind of already making plans, preparing themselves. But when you're in a situation like this, nobody plans to lose, nobody plans to say goodbye and things like that. But that's something I made a conscious effort when I was just in the locker room. Most of the guys that may be free agents, who knows what's going to happen next year. You know, a lot of things can happen from here to next year. So I just told him that I love him and I appreciate everybody. Did you ever mention how much talent this team has? Is it harder to swallow this ending because of all the talent you have and the high potential and the bar that was set? Absolutely. We felt like this was our year. We felt like it was the year we was going to put all together and go in a soup bowl, but, you know, it didn't happen that way.  But at the end of the day, just grateful, just grateful for the guys, just grateful for the opportunity to even play with these guys. You know, some of the guys I won't be able to play with again. So just appreciative. What are your expectations? Is it hard for you to be more of that? Everything was set up for you guys as a number one seed, a character? Yeah, I mean, number one seed, six seed, you know, don't really matter. Because at the end of the day, once you have to go out in the field, you got to go out there and win games regardless if you get a first round by or not. But we obviously felt that having the first round by, guys would rest it up. We just didn't execute well enough to win the ball game. So it hurts you the way it goes. I guess that's my point. Kevin, I mentioned the words that you had with Ryan after the game. I mean, just, you know, a lot of people just look at the interceptions he had and point a lot of criticism at him. I guess what can you say about what he's meant to this team as a leader?  But the past three years he's been here, when you look at all-time tighting quarterbacks and things like that, he's right up there at the top. So obviously, he's meant a lot to this team, meant a lot to this success. And he's been a huge part of success that we've had over the past few years.  I mean, that's what comes with being a leader. It comes with being a quarterback. I miss one tackle and I feel like I had a terrible game. And that's just how it goes. I mean, but like I said, he's meant a lot to, my family, you know, obviously, I know his family, his wife, he's meant a lot to my family, means a lot to this team and a lot to this community. So, like I said, I told him, don't beat yourself up about it. These things happen and I know for a fact, he'll come back next year stronger than ever. You know, I'm trying to make another run at this thing. General Kevin, I mean, you get nine sacks, you hold Cincinnati, a high scoring team to 19 points. Consider basically a pretty good, you know, performance defensively overall?   Best I've ever seen. I've said it a few weeks ago, it's the best front four in the league.  And I'm hoping and praying that we can get him back because if we can have those guys rushing like they was today and stopping the running, we can have everybody dropping in coverage and making players on the back end. I mean, I think this defense can really take the next step, obviously, trying to be the number one defense in the league. How confident when you guys got that last stop, got the ball back to the offense? How confident were you? It was game over at that point, they're putting points on the court. Yeah, I mean, we've seen it numerous times. It happened in the San Fran game. We've seen on the sideline. Obviously, we're still going over different things that we have to go back out there for the two-minute drill. But I'm sitting on the sideline. We're about to win the game.  We might kick a field, we might score a touchdown. But, you know, sometimes these things don't happen.  But I had full confidence that we was going to score and win the game.


The 28th Conference of Parties or COP28 has begun in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates and climate change is of course on the agenda, the key agenda point of course. Now over the next two weeks or so you are going to be hearing a lot of terms like mitigation, terms like the carbon budget, terms like the loss and damage fund adaptation and some of these terms might leave you a bit puzzled about whether we are really making any progress towards dealing with the very pressing issue of climate change. We know that the impacts of climate change are right here, right now, millions of people suffering those kinds of impacts, whether we are talking about weather events, whether we are talking about longer structural issues, we are talking about food. In so many ways, people across the globe are suffering from the impact of climate change right now and the question really before all of us is that are we taking any concrete steps, are the steps we are taking good enough to address the problem of climate change to reverse the kind of damage that is already being caused to protect ourselves, the damage that is definitely coming in the next few years. We have with us D. Raghunandan of the Delhi Science Forum who has been following many of these summits for many years now, who has been following these issues so much. Raghunandan, thank you so much for joining us. Hello, thank you for having me. Raghunandan, before we get into some of the individual questions and topics that you know are going to be the subject of discussion, I just wanted to ask a general question for the benefit of our audience here really. What happens at these COP summits and specifically COP 28? Why is it significant? To answer your first question, what happens at these summits is that there is a broad agenda fixed for the particular summit in question which has been fixed partly at the previous COP and partly during the intersectional discussions and negotiations and there is usually one meeting between two COPs where some of the agenda finalization takes place. So that is number one and this of course has to be agreed by all the countries, the parties. So it's a slightly long process and negotiations are involved. A lot of non-governmental organizations are also consulted in one way or the other. In formulating the agenda and what happens to those and then agenda documents are prepared for each of these things by committee set up for that purpose. So two broad things happen. One is that there are technical discussions on specific agenda items. Like you mentioned, loss and damage or adaptation or now an item has been introduced on food security and agriculture. So you have special sessions on that which are in parallel and then you have plenary sessions where everybody sits together and adopts resolutions and some of these are key to each COP, the major resolutions and the final declaration that comes out of the COP. So these are two things that happen and apart from which there are a large number of side events which are organized by countries, by non-governmental organizations, by industry participants etc. So there is a general jamboree and a festival atmosphere. At the same time, there are business-like sessions taking place either in groups or at the plenary level. Next question that you asked was what is key about this COP? What is specific about this COP is under the Paris Agreement, it had been decided that there would be a what is called a global stock take. Meaning you have taken certain decisions as to how much emissions will be reduced, how much money will come for adaptation etc. These were decisions taken under the Paris Agreement and it was decided that starting from 2020 that is five years after the Paris Agreement, there would be a process initiated to take stock of all these decisions, what has happened, how much has happened, how much has not happened etc. That process has been going on from 2020 till 2023 till last month and last month a set of documents has been released which is the summary of the technical dialogues that have taken place as part of the global stock take and then this has gone to the country parties who have then sat together and prepared a synthesis report. So there are two documents being placed, one is the report of the technical dialogue which reflects the opinions of countries, non-country parties, industry, NGOs etc. and then there is a synthesis report. These have been placed before this COP and at this COP you are expected to take stock of what has happened and what has happened covers mitigation that is emission reductions, adaptation, funding and technology support etc. You take stock of this based on that you arrive at some modalities, how to correct, how to modify, how to advance and this process will take another year until in 2025, middle of 2025 all countries are expected to submit revised NDCs, nationally developed contributions, what they would do to keep emissions down etc. etc. By middle of 2025 they are expected to submit these updated NDCs which will get ratified and finalized at the end of 2025 that is in COP 30. That process has to start now this year at COP 28. So by the end of this we expect at least an outline what has the COP understood from this global stock take, what kind of revision does it expect to see, what kind of guidance does it give to the country parties and how are they proposed to work out a mechanism to develop these updated NDCs prior to COP 30. This is the main thing that is to be expected from this COP that's this global stock take has not taken place before and this is the first time it's taking place and therefore it's a very major development. But from the details that have emerged out of the global stock take report, how has our progress been, what grade do we get? I put it like this, if you look at the synthesis report which is a political document because it's been agreed by all countries so it's not purely the technical aspects. The secretariat of the UN framework convention is also is the party who has actually drafted the document and there is a certain shall we say vested interest on the part of everybody. The UN bureaucracy, the UN system, countries to say we've been engaged in these negotiations for the past 20 odd years and we've done a good job. That is understandable because they've spent a lot of time and money. So part of the report is to say, yes we have not done that well but hey we haven't done too badly in the sense that we have slowed down the growth of emissions. It was much higher before we started this process we would have said temperatures would reach 3.5 or 4 degrees higher than the pre-industrial era. Now we are down to 2.5 to 3 so there's the improvement. This is what in articles I have written including a news click I have described as the glass quarter full approach saying that yeah three quarters of the job is still left way but look we've achieved a quarter of what we've set out to do but the three quarters empty part of it is that we are way behind the targets. The target was to achieve limiting the temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius or preferably as close to 1.5 degrees as possible. Today global emissions are about 57 giga tons or billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent and what the global stock take has shown is that in 2030 which is where all our NDCs are targeted at going by present NDCs then we are way below where we should be at 2030 and we are below by how much if you want to reach 2 degrees Celsius we are below by about 25 percent that is we should be 25 percent lower than where the prediction is that we will be and if you want to reach 1.5 we are 42 percent lower than where we want to be to put that in perspective between last year and this year total global emissions have actually gone up by one and a half to two percent so we are still in an upward trajectory while we should be on a downward trajectory and a sharply downward trajectory in order to reach the goal in 2030 where we are way behind where we should be that is the stock reality which COP 28 has to face up to and if it does face up to the stock reality it will mean starting very steep reductions even now and certainly in the next NDCs which are to be tabled at COP 30 there should be an extremely sharp decline in order to reach the target to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius in fact activists have said that this is the COP where 1.5 degrees might be very secretly buried at this point by the way at which things are going you see if there was actually several COPs ago a group of indians scientists and NGOs who issued a summit where a statement when this 1.5 degree which was earlier just said as an aspirational goal seemed to emerge as a target this group of Indian scientists and NGOs put out a statement saying this is unrealistic and 1.5 Celsius is already in the rear view mirror it's gone so the assessments tell us that this year we have already reached 1.4 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and if that is the case then there is no way we can prevent temperature rise from stopping at 1.5 or below that because there is what is called a temperature lack the carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases which we have put into the atmosphere whatever you do even if you switch off all the factories in and cars in the world today temperature will keep rising because of the carbon dioxide which is already accumulated in the atmosphere so 1.5 is certain to be crossed therefore what our target should be is to try and keep temperature rise to as much below 2 degrees as possible and taking this into account that we may cross 1.5 but if we take early action we can make sure that although it goes above 1.5 for a few years it is can then be checked and maybe reduced later but that's called an overshoot so there is going to be an overshoot beyond 1.5 it remains to be seen whether we are able to check that overshoot and bring it back down again but 1.5 as I said is a slightly illusory target let's be realistic and make sure of 2 degrees because right now if current indices are followed we are looking at temperature rise of between 2.5 and 2.9 Celsius close to 3 and as you said in your introduction even at 1.4 look at the kind of extreme weather events we are already experiencing floods, droughts, forest fires, heat waves and various IPCC reports are telling us that some of these impacts sea level rise, glacier melts and melting of the polar ice caps have already become almost irreversible you can't now put the ice back into the poles and they have gone beyond what are called adaptive limits that is sea level rise has become so high that in many places like in the islands you can't adjust anymore they'll just drown out your island it's gone beyond capacity to adapt to those changes. Now of course this brings us to the key debate which is of course which is a part of every COP which is a part of every climate discussion which is really the question of differentiated responsibilities the question of what the global north especially owes at this point I believe there have been new reports which even talk a bit more about the impact of colonialism and all that but specifically at this point do you see countries of the global north being able to sort of is there a greater recognition of this issue than before or you know has it continued to be the same especially when it comes to issues like financing? You see my own understanding is it's not as if the global north does not know what is happening the reports from the scientific community from IPCC even from United Nations agencies from agencies like the International Energy Agency the UN Environment Protection Agency UNEP which publishes a global emissions gap report the latest of which has already been released before they're all saying the same thing so we know the problem and we also know what needs to be done to tackle the problem. Question is are we willing to do it and the global north has been highly reluctant to put it mildly to actually do what is necessary even the NDCs the pledges that were made in the Paris Agreement the deepest cuts were promised by the European Union which have long been considered the green champions of the world but even the EU targets were roughly 55 to 60 percent cut below 1990 levels which is already 20 to 25 percent cut less than what the EU had been promising a few years before that so already they've come down the US of course is shameless they have made a commitment of reduction based on 2050 which doesn't tell you much about what's happening before that and their baseline year is to reduce emissions below 2005 levels not 1990 and between 1990 and 2005 US emissions had already gone up by 17 percent so whatever commitment they've made now you should subtract 78 percent from that you're left with nothing like about 25 to 30 percent cut which they have promised that was already there in the Paris NDCs since then citing various issues the Ukraine war economic slowdown in Europe and in the US partly all the advanced capitalist countries have resumed power generation using coal they have increased the use of natural gas and they are giving it a spin by calling natural gas a transitional fuel between fossil fuels and renewables whereas natural gas is just another fossil fuel of course it's not as dirty as coal but that doesn't mean that it's a great alternative so they are pushing the use of natural gas they are increasing the use of coal because of economic considerations and the presidency of the COP Dr. Aljaber of the UAE is the president of the COP he is also the CEO of the Abu Dhabi national oil company which is one of the largest oil companies in the world so the president of COP has now been pushing for and you'll hear this term repeated during the COP unabated oil meaning that if you extract oil but you do some carbon capture and sequestration that is okay so it's like the natural gas alibi you're giving an alibi to oil extraction along with carbon capture it's not clear how much carbon will be captured whether it will be 20 percent 80 percent whether you'll have the money to do it whether Nigeria will have the money to do it whether other oil producing companies will have the money to do it but this unabated oil will start creeping in now you already had natural gas being given an alibi now you're getting this and he's also pushing for what is called blue hydrogen which is hydrogen extracted from these processes of oil processing but which again will require carbon capture in order to use it so various oil fossil fuel alternatives are going to be put forward at this COP also all of which means that the chances of reducing emissions are reduced considerably compared to where we were before so the big doubt at this COP is going to be what is the terminology going to emerge as guidelines for the new NDC if you're going to get all these alibis coming in then the new NDCs in COP 30 are not going to amount to much and they certainly will not be equivalent to this now the big problem and maybe this is your next question and we can deal with it is how does the world tackle this reluctance on the part of the developed countries because if they don't reduce there's not much anybody else can do right absolutely yeah that exactly that is I think Raghu my final question for today's interview that this boils down to what you said earlier which is that it's really a political question at so many levels and for instance especially with the rise of certain right-wing regimes in the global north and even in some countries in the global south you see a complete reluctance to tackle climate change even you have hurt wielders for instance who is said the new you know whose party emerges a leading one in the Netherlands who's a complete denier it seems like we know Donald Trump went out of the Paris Agreement has a good chance of winning next year so how do you sort of also see this either reluctance or in certain cases absolute denial of the issue in many of these countries yeah so there are two or three aspects to this one is we have seen that at the COP countries have got together particularly the least developed countries the Africa group the small island states they have got together for years have been battling this question of compensation from the developed countries for damage and losses already incurred by these least developed etc countries to constitute a separate fund for loss and damage that was finally agreed at COP 27 and just yesterday at COP 28 it was given a formal stamp of approval and the fund has been launched the problem however is there is a fund which the developed countries are supposed to give to assist developing countries to adopt low carbon development techniques and to adapt to changes in climate now you've got an additional fund called loss and damage the problem is all this money is has to come from the same parties right from the US from Europe from and on all these funds loss and damage is the latest the global north the developed countries have been fudging right from the outside they pledged a hundred billion dollars per year by 2020 they are nowhere near that currently numbers are being projected to say that last year they reached 81.2 billion dollars which is a completely misleading number the number is actually closer to about 20 billion because in this 81 billion which they are counting they are also counting multilateral assistance they are also counting development aid which is normally given by the developed countries to the developing all those they are lumping together and showing under this hundred billion dollars fund on top of this you are asking for additional loss and damage so what is actually going to happen is that they will be and we'll see this at this comp they will be continued tussles between the developing countries and the developed countries where is this money going to come from you keep this money separate what is the mechanism and so on my big worry is that with so much effort being put into these issues of financing and loss and damage as well as a lot of political capital being invested in this will there be sufficient energy and capital left to deal with these issues of reducing emissions that's going to be a big challenge unless the least developed countries the developing countries can strategically balance out how much effort they put into the financing issue and how much effort they put in so a lot is going to depend on how much effort is going to be put in and whether the developed countries are able to use the financing issue to distract away from the emissions issue it suits them if you go on discussing financing and if you don't push on emissions because money is cheap they will promise you the moon and give you a few pieces of rock and leave you dangling there while the emissions continue as before based on the fact that as you said in your introduction the impacts that are being felt are actually being felt as much by the global north as the global south but the north has the ability to partially withstand that we are able to spend money to counter the impacts they are able to contain it etc knowing that the developing countries in the global south will not be able to so that's what the global north is betting on that yes climate change is going to get worse we'll tackle that problem slowly but we will prioritize looking after our own internal economic interests and domination of the world economy by protecting our carbon budget to make sure that we retain our dominant position because we can withstand climate impacts more than the others can however this is a faustian bargain because the time will come 10 years from now when impacts will be so great including in the higher altitudes higher latitudes of the northern hemisphere that europe and the united states and north america will be so severely affected that they will have to come around to doing this the issue is by then it might be too late thank you so much for that unfortunately a very bleak picture but this is a moment for realism more than anything else as opposed to misplaced optimism sometimes so very essential that we have these discussions thank you so much we'll come back to you maybe around the same time next week for a sum up of what has happened in the next week's discussions which are definitely going to be very crucial thank you thank you so much thank you


Yeah cubs. We'll get that mad for you Let's go


Love championship point Rafa Nadal to take 21 slams He's got three chances He serves into the back end of mevredev for never from Rafa goes into the forehand of mevredev volume from Rafa Mevredev gets it, but he can't get it Rafa's got 21 Rafa's got 21 The GOATS, the GOATS, the GOATS Let's go 21 slams Rafa Nadal And we have just witnessed one of the greatest matches in the history of the game And Rafa's just kicking tennis balls around and pointing at the crowd He wins an Australian over for the second time Finally, FINALLY!


I'm Ryan Schmidt and I'm an entomologist and I work at Echdices Foundation located at Blue Dasher Farm. We're out here in rural South Dakota by Esteline. It's a non-profit that is working, designed to work closely with farmers and ranchers that are trying to figure out how to implement regenerative practices on their land. And so we work very closely with that and we have a firm belief that as researchers that are trying to help farmers we also need to kind of be farmers ourselves. So that's why Echdices is located on a working regenerative farm, Blue Dasher Farm here in eastern South Dakota. So this is a roller crimper that we built with funding from SARE and this is designed to terminate cover crops if they're at the correct stage. This piece of machine, the idea came because we had a lot of farmers in the area that were interested in using a roller crimper to control their cover crops in the spring time before they put in their cash crops. And the problem they were running into is there weren't a lot of available in our areas in South Dakota and they also cost quite a bit of money which was a big hang up for a lot of producers that were trying something different on their farm. Roller crimpering was kind of a new idea so they didn't want to invest a lot of money if they didn't have the funds or weren't sure that it would work well with their operation. So a colleague of mine, Mike Bredesen and I were talking to some local farmers and we kind of came up with the idea that we could build one of these machines for not that much money and not that much time. And so that was the idea and we approached SARE to get some funding for it and the project took off from there and this machine is built from mostly scrap parts and that was the whole idea for cost savings from this. So the roller crimper itself is made from an international 490 disc and so that's the frame for it but if for whatever farmers needs they can scale up to different machinery that would work or scale down for different frames quite easily you can find very small discs or you can find quite large ones out there and this one we chose this size because it met the needs this is about 23 feet wide and it met the needs of the farmers in the area but it also was below what most farmers wanted from from new discs so it had no trade-in value so it was very cheap to get and then from there once we had selected that we went to work on finding the other scrap pieces that we needed to complete the drums on the on the roller so the drums we found in the salvage yard those long tubes you see there that we attached the blades those are probably out of the North Dakota oil fields we think that's what the scrapyard guy thought and they just so happened to be the perfect diameter which is 16 inches to to mount roller crimper drums and then we did purchase you'll see there are straight blades on the machine versus the chevron pattern and we did that because it was very easy for somebody like myself and Mike who had never well did anything or put together any sort of machine before to to assemble that versus the chevron blades that you typically see on a roller crimper that have required some kind of bending of the metal or cutting of it these were really easy to get from up from a steel manufacturer in the area they even cut the blades to length for us so then from there we just assembled it using expertise from our farmer cooperators who who knew how it showed us how to weld and how to assemble machinery so that's kind of what ectises is all about learning with farmers and ranchers and kind of providing some of the the expertise that maybe they don't have the time or the equipment to do themselves to do that research and for the farmers the final cost in materials for this project was roughly five thousand dollars which is what our goal was for this so material which is substantially less than what you find online currently a roller crimper of this size is probably thirty to thirty five thousand dollars so it's substantially less than that and the hours we put into it total are roughly a hundred and sixty hours which hopefully the next phase of this project is to release videos of our build as well as blueprints to the public so that people don't have to spend so much time trying to figure out how to fit all the pieces together