We'll get started. This is the four-year-old panel, so we've been involved in OpenStack since the beginning of OpenStack, and it's changed into something we didn't really expect, so we now are all repentant OpenStackers, and we will start with a quick introduction of like where you were four years ago, what you did during those four years, because that's special for Jay. We'll start with Vish. Hi, I'm Vish Aishaya, so four years ago I was in San Francisco when we wrote the first line of code for Nova before OpenStack was a thing, which is a long story that I won't get into yet, although maybe if things get really boring we'll get into the really old days, and I was the first OpenStack compute technical lead for the first two years, and I'm currently on the board director's and the technical committee, so I'm still very involved, although I do a lot less coding now. Four years ago, God, I don't really know. Four years ago, oh, sorry, I'm Monty Taylor. Four years ago I was actually a core developer on Drizzle with our good friend, well actually like five years ago I was a core developer on Drizzle with J-Pipes, working at Rackspace, and around the time that we started all this stuff, I started the the Infra program was the original Infra-PTL. If you look at my Stacolytics numbers, you'll realize that like Vish, I probably do less actual real technical things, or not, yeah, I do less coding in the thing that I did maybe a year ago, but because other smarter people have taken over for me. Good morning, I'm Ann Gentel. Let's see, four years ago, November 2010, I had just started at Rackspace, brand new, hadn't had a Mac computer in about eight years, barely remembered three Linux commands. What else? I had been working as basically a community documentation consultant, and I had just like I started at Rackspace. I had this keynote in Sweden for community documentation. I found out that there was this community documentation job in my backyard in Austin, Texas, and jumped at the chance. I think only one other person applied. But that was, you know, four years ago fall, I wasn't at the actual Ozcon starting, like, kickoff, so I was even a little later than some of these old-timers, right? Old-timers. We're all so old. That's right. Hi, I'm Jay Pipes. Sagittarius, I like long walks on the beach. So yeah, Monty kind of said four years ago. Monty and I were working on the Drizzle database project. We'd both come over from Sun Microsystems and got involved with what turned out to be an open stack doing sort of due diligence on what the next generation of Rackspace cloud would be, and so we did a bunch of due diligence on various systems at the time, and Nova had literally just been sort of thrown out into the world and we got notified about it and took a look at it and said, well, this might work, and it's been a long, strange journey ever since then. And my name is Thierry Cares. I was involved, I was in Canonical as the technical lead for Moon2Server when OpenStack started, and I got hired by Rackspace to work on the release management side of things and try to bring some structure to the effort, and then I moved to the OpenStack Foundation, and I basically do the same thing I used to do, but the job changed in four years a bit, apparently going from 10 to 1000 developers brings interesting scanning challenges. So we all moved on, but we all had a different journey, but we're still involved in OpenStack, and that's what makes those five people a bit special, because some people that were there four years ago just moved on, because, you know... Okay, Mark's not here, but I met Mark Collier and Jim Curry, and they were the ones who interviewed and hired me, and they were both kind of business development people at Rackspace who had these crazy ideas, and if you really want a wonderful history of OpenStack, there's a wired article that I now hand to every new Racker, and just highly recommend it for the real, true story of what happened at Rackspace, what happened at NASA, how people met, and it's a wonderful story. So if you're interested in this kind of historical context, read that one. So my first question to the panel is we all started this for different reasons, and coming from different backgrounds, but we all had a goal, personal goal, that we wanted to accomplish by joining that project. So my first question is the most controversial one. What did we fail to accomplish during those four years? What did we set out to do originally when we joined this journey, and we are still not there. We did other things, but we failed to accomplish those early goals. I have not made a hundred million dollars, personally. That was your original plan? Surely, that was not your original goal. I didn't know you're going to start with the hard one. Wow. Wow. I've got one. So the initial plan for NOVA was to basically create a private cloud for NASA, which had both an infrastructure and a platform component to it. NASA aims, unfortunately, doesn't use that cloud anymore. So that was a failing, I feel. And that was primarily because OpenStack grew so quickly that it sort of grew out of NASA too fast, and a lot of the experts, including myself, that were at NASA, ended up leaving and going on to do other things. And so there wasn't enough expertise there to keep going with it. So there's a fail. The reason why I added this question to the panel is that I have an answer for that. My... Cheating man. I asked you for questions. You didn't provide any. So my initial goal was to not have a future where only Amazon would provide public cloud. And so the early goal was really to build this interconnected hub of OpenStack-powered public clouds that would take over the world and beat Amazon as their own game. And I feel like we accomplished a lot more than we set out to do, but on this specific specific aspect, Amazon is still very much there. We don't have this interconnected hub of small public clouds or small, smallish, bigger public clouds that were supposed to replace this this thing. So to me, it's we are not there yet. And I feel like we took a long detour to that original goal that I had. So it would be my fail. I would say my personal failure... Well, two things. So I personally wanted to rid the world of the scourge of XML. And I have surely failed in that. We've made big, big strides towards that. But it's still in there. No, but in all seriousness, I think we have honestly failed to focus on the API side of OpenStack. I think it is to this day a mess. The public HTTP APIs and 3, 4 years ago, I was really pushing for, look, it's the API. We need to standardize the APIs, make them consistent. We can have differing implementations. We can, you know, and that was one of my personal goals. And I really haven't seen that through. But hopefully soon we can make some some more progress there. We've got a new working group. We do have an API working group. Get involved. My... I think, and similar to all these, I think we've made some interesting progress in the general direction, but started off, you know, on the N4CI side of things with the idea that we do things such that every commit into the things would be releasable. Like that's sort of the goal there. In theory, I mean, we do have people running, you know, this stuff continuously delivered, but a lot of them are running it, you know, two, three, four, five weeks behind, six months behind, what not. And that's because there's four years behind. And that's because in truth, it's a bit harder than that, right? And we haven't quite accomplished for all of the stuff that we do and for all of the sort of the effort that goes into that side. It's still we're still not sort of hitting that on the cycle. I would love to make that, I'd like to make Thierry's job irrelevant, you know. It would be great. You know, I'd love to make my job relevant. And we're both still here. So I'm trying to think of a failing in the documentation side since I'm the Docs PTL. Oh, you are so awesome. It's not awesome. It's so interesting, though, with the growth. We actually had a session yesterday where it's growing so much so fast. So many projects from two to now 17 are in the integrated incubating sort of realm. And yesterday, we actually had a comment in one of the sessions. Your team is not going to write the documentation. Your team is going to write the docs on how to write the documentation. And so I feel like there's this total inception going on where we've gotten so big that, you know, the experts laying around with this very specialty area of Docs are just going to have to write a small shell script to replace themselves. You know what there's a lot of in documentation XML. Slowly changing. So my next question would be a bit more positive. Which of our successes were unexpected? I can clear it off. Mark, if you're here, just feel free to come up on stage. Growth wasn't expected. How fast it grew and how many people we attracted? Right. I mean, how many people were in Austin? 200? No. No less. No. 150 people in Austin. 75. Yeah. I mean, I think I vaguely remember the temperature was about the number of people in Fahrenheit. It was like 110 degrees or something in Austin. Yeah. I mean, I wouldn't say that the growth has been, I mean, it's been pleasantly surprising how quickly things have grown.  I think the, an early criticism of the open-stack community was that, oh, it's all sort of fluff and marketing and, you know, there's no there, there. So I think we're actually starting to catch up to the marketing hype a bit, which is, I think, a successful sort of curve, right? I think we're getting to the point where we're matching what we're saying we are, right? In the vein of growth, when we first started writing NOVA, we would have been happy to have five users. Like we did not expect to ever have other people looking at that code and complaining about how bad it was. And so for us, it was a big surprise on the NASA end to have Rackspace join and then have this whole initiative sort of spring up out of what we thought was some code that we wrote over a weekend. So that was definitely a surprise on the positive side. One of the surprises that I had was the infrastructure model we built for this. Maybe that was your plan all along, Monty, but I feel like we built a development model instead of a cloud platform in some ways and that other people adopt, even internally, inside enterprises. And it wasn't like an expected development. We weren't set out to, you know, fix all the development models for everyone and build something that would inspire others to reuse it. We just tried to iterate on well-known patterns and it ended up being something that serves as a model for the rest of the open source community and inside companies. Yeah, I would completely agree with that. And if you look at the just the sheer breadth of tooling that the infrastructure team has created over the last, you know, three or four years with Zool and NodePool and GitReview and GERDI. I mean, it's just, it is kind of astonishing how much that team has produced and coped with, you know, the growth in the developer community in such a short amount of time. It really is pretty fantastic. That's your Q, Monty. You can go. I was just going to say, Monty, you're great. Oh gosh, well, I was just going to say that possibly the most unexpected thing is GERDI that we could produce GERDI out of all this. What's GERDI? For those of you who don't know, it's a text-based TTY interface to Garrett and Code Reviews that is fantastic. So never would have expected that that would have been a thing that we would have worked on or found pleasing. But things grow and change. We started off with some development model stuff. And because of all of this growth that we sort of had to, I'd say possibly it was unexpected that we were able to cope with the sort of explosive growth as well as we have. I mean, there's still tons of warts and tons of ways in which we just had a session yesterday on how to deal with the review load and project scaling issues. But that's a fascinatingly great conversation to have to have at this point. Do you remember the, I think it was the cactus, maybe it was Diablo Summit where we were having the debate about going to GitHub or using Git as opposed to Bizarre and Launchpad? Oh my gosh.  Fun memories. Yes. And now we just sort of take a lot of that stuff for granted. But that was an actual conversation that we had. So I was thinking about this this morning coming over here is that we used to have a bunch of these like the official OpenStack argument of JSON versus XML. But there was there was also the event that twisted argument and, you know, there was that there was the Git Bizarre, you know, kafafel and like all of these different, different things that were just like diametrically opposed, like, like, you know, die hard people punching each other in the face. Right. And I'm sure four years from now we're going to look back and say, do you remember like blueprints? We had these things called blueprints. Yeah. But but that said, I mean, we had like 100 people in the room yesterday talking about the the spec process. And like, really, what we're talking about is like, hey, maybe if we had like a thing where you did the first heading first, and then we got it, we got approved to that and then we moved on.  Which somebody did just, you know, two and a half years ago. Yeah. Another unexpected development, I think, was the technical meritocracy that we built. I mean, it was set as more as a social experiment and it actually lasted and created this this hot market for open stack engineers. That makes us all very well paid. So that's an unexpected development. You remember, we started off with me saying that I did not make my 100 million dollars. That was your plan, not mine. Well, next question or anyone? No, I don't have a good unexpected. I can't believe there's still not so many women. I guess I have to say that like, I'm like, really? I can't. There are more and we're growing every time.  But like, yeah, the there's four. You guys haven't gotten the meta cloud playing card deck. You definitely should get one of them because our faces are in it and that's a great narcissism boost. But maybe not for you, but it is for me. But but if you look into this, there's, there's exactly four women in it and each one of them are the queen of something. Right. And and that's, that's, that's cute. But sadly, you know, and was pointing out that that's actually that's one female card off from being the appropriate percentage percentage of women attendees at open stacks at summits. And if that doesn't put in perspective for you, what that percentage really is and obviously shouldn't be. It's good visual.  But I never expected to travel the world like we have and I never expected to have relationships with true collaborators in Europe in Asia around the world. Like that's been amazing. That's true. So next question is, which are our largest challenges ahead of us? What? What can what should we fix? What is left to do? I think we, we, we had so much marketing hype so early, right. And then we had some explosive growth, both in the, in the code success and in the, in the community, that we, we never really got the chance to, to, to have that sort of second version iteration thing that oftentimes you'll have early on. You'll have like the early crazy thing you did over the weekend and you do it for a little while. And then you're like, okay, let's rewrite that. And then we'll, then we'll be serious, right? We're, we're basically having to, to, to do a 5,000 person summit on, on the basis of something that we're, we, we can't like we have, we have to organically iterate on, on this thing that we've got right now. And it's doing a great job for lots of people, right? But like we, we didn't, we grew so fast. We've got to, we've got to, we have to keep making this thing work and move forward. And I think that at the scale of humans we are and, and how in use this thing already is, everybody wants it to be so many things. And we can't just, we can't, you know, we can't just take a chunk and throw it away because there's a billion people using it already. And so I think that's figuring out how to, how to move that forward in a, in a sane way is, is the sort of the ongoing challenge. And it's not going to get any better. To me, the current challenge we have is, is around the project structure. And we've, we've been having those discussions lately on the, on the design summit side. Try to not be limited by the project structure that we said we'd be built early on. We iterated a number of times on the way the, the, the various projects are structured. And we, but today we are reaching a new, a new, a new level where we need to adapt again. Because, because the current model doesn't fit what, what's required of, by our ecosystem. And, and so this, this is like the next challenge for, I mean the very next challenge, basically. We need to evolve the project structure so that it's not constraining our future growth and, and doesn't prevent competition, doesn't prevent interesting projects from, from being taken into account. And I think that's the, the next challenge for me. I think our biggest challenge is struggling with how we define ourselves, like what actually OpenStack is over time. Because the, the growth has led to this, the situation where we have everybody wanting to be part of the community and have this great expanding, growing group of people working on many different things. But that creates confusion and a lack of focus in terms of us really defining OpenStack. And, and the reason that definition is important, which is the other piece that I think we need, the biggest challenge we have is, is interoperability. When, when we have a loose definition of OpenStack, it makes it very hard to give guarantees to the community around what is interoperable and what works together and what doesn't. And when you have something that's growing this quickly, it's very hard to define it and, and give it a full set of full structure. And I think that structure is going to be a big challenge that we deal with over the next couple of years. What is OpenStack? What does it mean to be OpenStack? How do I interoperate with different OpenStacks? Like can we really, because that's really what we need to achieve those goals that we're talking about taking over the world and being, you know, a bunch of little clouds everywhere, you can't do that without some kind of definition. I think that's like the, the really big challenge, like the elephant in the room. Yeah, but I, you know, there's little, there's smaller challenges, how to get enough people who know Nova well enough to review it, reduce the technical debt. Not that that's a small challenge, but it's a piece of the puzzle. I also agree with Jay that we have a big challenge where we have huge adoptions of our APIs and there's applications built everywhere, specifically for OpenStack. That, I mean, I'm running the numbers, I'm looking at the support, I'm looking for the developers that are application developers. And so there's so much, even though I led with like a contributor developer challenge, the other challenge is the application developers supporting them, giving them interoperable clouds. Yeah, I guess it always comes back to that large one, right? And another point on that is we, we are too big to know everyone and assume that our culture, our common values will, will naturally spread to new, the people that are joining our community. So scaling that culture, we have lots of unwritten rules, we have lots of principles that are, that we take for granted and that we expect newcomers to also adopt. And, but we failed to maybe document those shared understandings in a way that is consumable by new, new community members. So scaling our community to past those, this new number of people we can't really connect with and have a success there. I think, and I think this has come up a few times from, I think it came up in the keynote panel on Monday. The, as far as that goes, we're also reaching out more and more into, not just to non-English speaking, I mean, because, you know, we've had you around since day one, so we've always been at least slightly non-English speaking. Sure. But we're actually getting into, into more and more into non-Western cultures, right? And if we're actually going to be sort of global, then things that we take for granted as a basis for our culture as we interact with, you know, new friends around the world are, we have to encounter those. But also, it's not just about assimilation. Like I certainly hope we don't like attempt to be an American-style hegemony, right? Like this is, this is, as we, as we meet new people and bring them into sort of our culture, they're going to have, they're going to have cultural values and new experiences that are important for us to engage with. And that's, that's a, that's a, that's a big thing. I mean, like that, that isn't been really all that successful in the history of mankind, honestly. But like if we're, if we're going to do that and we're not just going to bulldoze people over, then that's an important thing to grapple with. I would say for me, looking into the future, the, probably the number one challenge of the OpenStack community is actually, it's challenged personally that I, I have, which is learning to say no, right? I think that, especially with the, with the growth in the number of vendors and the number of developers and contributors, operators, and employers, and business folks that are, you know, relying on, on OpenStack, building businesses around OpenStack, obviously using OpenStack in, in IT infrastructure, there are just, it's, it's just a never-ending stream of feature requests. And constant pressure.  And even if you had a million developers, you know, working out, you still can never keep up with it. And, you know, one of the discussions that we've been having in, and certainly in the NOVA contributor team, but also just across OpenStack development is how, how do you prioritize what you work on, right? And we've, we've had a number of different proposals and we've, we've hashed out a bunch of ideas. But I think solving or answering that question and, and getting tools that enable us to say, we're going to focus on this, you know, these few things for the next X number of months. And we're going to not, not do this. You know, we're, we're not going to look at this. We're not going to work on this. We need to, we need to learn how to say that. You know, we need to learn how to say no gracefully and explain in, you know, very clear words why, why we're focusing on some things and we're not going to do others. And it's a natural consequence of the meritocratic model we built where, where technical people are in charge. We don't want to say no because we want to be nice. Right. And it's not just, you know, the, the technical side, right? I think a lot of it, you know, is a product management. We need to take some, some best practices from product management communities and be able to project our roadmap in a way that people understand and, and can, and can deal with. Yeah. One of the, I mean, we've, there's been a lot of talk about need for, for product management in the, in the project. And I think actually one of the, one of the things that we really need to engage with or think about there is that we spend a lot of time early on. And we've done it sort of throughout of how do we, how do we allow 2000 developers to, to collaborate in a, in a, in a leaderless model where there is not a top down command and control structure. Right. Because that's something that normally doesn't scale to the size because we've built that. It now means that as we, as we look at bringing the product managers from, from the different, different interests that are, that are, that are, that are going to be involved with us together. We, we kind of have to, to develop a, the same thing, except that at least in the development side, we had a whole bunch of open source history on our, on our side and we were just taking the next step. There is, I would say, zero history of cross company product management collaboration in this particular, in this particular way. So like there's, it's going from iterating on something to inventing. Right. There's not a, there's a, there's a long history of developers working in the open source community together. Right. There's not so much of a long history of product managers working, you know, cross company saying, oh, you know, let's get together.  Okay. So we have 10 minutes left and I want to open the, the floor for questions from the audience. Do you have any question for Mark? My question for Mark is Mark, where are you? No answer. Any questions anyone? Go for it. There is Mike. There's a microphone over there in the halls in the room. You've got mics all over the place. It's crazy. Or just scream. It's fine. So this is not a question. Just a comment on the last statement. My name is Sean. I'm from Red Hat. I'm one of the product managers that actually work on OpenStack. And that's what I do for a living. And I just want to give you an update that this actually is one of the themes that we saw in the community. Right? This is, this is bigger than just one entity would like to represent their sort of interest in OpenStack. And we have in the foundation, the storage of the OpenStack foundation, we actually realized that. And this summit is the first summit when we actually had a meeting with all the influencers of OpenStack. So all the product managers actually met for the same time, first time here in this summit. And I believe that's a good start to get us what we need and actually start looking ahead of what we need to do at the project level. Right? And our goal is to start putting some governments inside the project so we can scale up in all that. So I believe that the first seeds already been laid out this summit. And it's a good indication of the maturity of OpenStack. And we got to this point now. And we need to put some formation in that. So I believe we're going to see more seeds of that in the next upcoming future. That's very good to hear. All right. Thank you. OpenStack is often compared to Linux at a number of different levels. I'd like to ask about the economic comparisons. When you go back, when Linux was four or five years old, you could go down to, you know, a computer land store and buy a box with Linux in it. It would be about $80. And if you got tired of paying $80 and you had enough bandwidth, you could start downloading the same distribution for free. And then over time as Linux matured and the enterprises adopted it, people wanted a higher level support and started paying for it. It seems to me that OpenStack has jumped to the end point where you can't get an upstream, you can't take the upstream OpenStack unless you're incredibly skilled and make it work. And the entry cost for somebody using it from a commercial vendor is, I don't know what the average is, somebody quoted me yesterday, $3,500 per node per year. Those are very high prices if you're trying to convince people that, you know, Amazon is too much money. I'm wondering what you think about the economic model of OpenStack and how that relates to the current state of the product. Anyone wants to take it? As someone who's never paid money for, well, any software, really, I don't quite know the product side probably as well as I should. So I can't really speak much to that. I do know that you are absolutely correct that it is way too difficult to get a simple running, well, is there a simple OpenStack system? I don't know. But you are absolutely correct that it is difficult to install and deploy OpenStack and get it running in a simple fashion. There's lots of ways to do it. There's lots of different guides. We do have upstream guides and there is an OpenStack release, like an upstream release, but you're absolutely right. There's different distributions, Mirantis, RDO, Ubuntu Cloud Archive, you name it, Appliances, Nebula, Piston. I guess my answer is that I don't know whether we jumped to the end or whether the vacuum was just there from the beginning and was filled from the beginning because it's hard to install and configure highly distributed systems. It's not like you're installing a Windows application on a single box or something. It's just inherently difficult. I think we're actually at a point where quite early in the Linux ecosystem where people want to build a supercomputer out of it, but it's only four years old and if you wanted to build a supercomputer with Linux by that time, you would pay that type of price. So we still need to potentially make it easier to deploy and consume directly from the upstream project so that a small university can set it up without having to resolve two crazy prices or a team of 100 to do it. There's a big difference in what's happened since 93 to now. One of those is that I'm much older than I was back then. But OpenSource in a lot of ways is one. It won a lot of the battles. It's become the de facto... When you do something that isn't OpenSource, you have to justify it now.  That isn't ridiculous at this point. It would have been ridiculous 20 years ago. But that means the unintended consequence, I think, of the resounding success of OpenSource overall is that most of the people working on OpenSource projects now are not doing it in their spare time. They're not doing it on the weekends. They're working for companies and they're working for companies who are involved in those projects, which means that I think that the economics of OpenSource in general have changed. We don't have things... Docker is a company. It's not a project. Ansible is a company. All of these things are being driven by that. All of them from a very early age. So with something like OpenStack, we had companies get involved immediately because it was in fact the only way to get developers on it. That is a very interesting... I think the OpenSource as hobbyist, that ship has sailed a long time ago. So long ago. I think the economies of OpenSource in general, not OpenStack specifically, I think the economy of OpenSource changed quite some time ago to be driven in large part by corporate contributors. When I say corporate contributors, I just mean people that are employed to work on OpenSource not necessarily that all they work on is corporate or vendor-specific stuff. I'm just saying developers who are employed to work on OpenSource. One more question. Morning. Thank you. If you could change one thing since you started from the four years ago, what would it be? OpenStack. I mean, not in the world, but in OpenStack. XML. I wouldn't have picked Python. There's a scaling... I feel like some of the scaling problems we deal with would be much easier in a statically-typed language and in a language that is built more for large-scale teams. Python is a great language for small-hack projects, quick iteration, like some of the stuff that was good early in the project, but at the current scale, I feel like it gets in our way sometimes. I'd agree with that, and I was one of the early proponents of... I mean, I obviously didn't make the decision to write Nova in Python, but I've been a Python person for years and years, and I was actually one of the reasons that I thought this was a good idea. I was like, woo-hoo, yay, Python, that's great. And yeah, it's fantastic in so many ways, and also we're quite a large... We get at odds with some of the other folks in the Python community sometimes.  You should do this other thing, and we're like, yeah, no, that doesn't work at our scale. And that's itself been some interesting challenges, and we've been working with people to try and address them that, but there's some fundamental things that I'd totally re-write in C++. I wouldn't. I'm fine with patterns, like the only language I can code in, so it's fine. It's a really good question. I'm trying to think about it. Why would it change? The other thing, and this is crazy, because this actually would make everything harder on us today if we did this right now, because we're actually trying to do the opposite thing, but in some ways our decision to make this... Or to keep it, it started off as two projects and two source code repositories. Our decision that that was to remain a good idea, rather than to make it a project with a whole bunch of endpoints and features inside of it and to solve the problem of how do you manage the internals of that, I think that we started down the road of keeping that separateness and that's led us into some interesting places that I think feed into some of the product management woes and some of the other scaling problems that we have kind of come back to that. So we just shove it all back into one thing that would... Out of time maybe in last comment. I was just going to say, I don't know if Soren Hansen's here, but he probably would appreciate this, but I think our heavy reliance on centralized database systems within a number of the components is a design choice that looking back, if we could now undo a lot of stuff around that, we're going to be struggling to un-centralize a lot of things in the next few years and hindsight's 2020, it would have been nice to design things a little differently on the data layer. One femto question with one femto answer. A lot of pressure. Thanks again, I think it's pretty clear that OpenStack's a great example of how to kind of come together as a community and develop code in a way that also fosters a healthy competition, but there seems to be some market pressure starting to come around the perimeter of open source type initiatives. Do you see any sort of clouds on the horizon in terms of influence from other public cloud providers or other entities, or is that something that's been on your radar as of yet? I think we've been pretty resistant to external pressure. Originally, it was like, oh, Microsoft will kill you, or this company enters the OpenStack space to hurt you, and it never happened, and it's true that there are new initiatives that are coming that are copying parts of OpenStack and not the whole model. I don't really care about threats. The biggest threats I see are just in terms of hype, like Docker, Kubernetes or two that have gotten a huge amount of attention. It reminds me of the early days of OpenStack before there was a lot of meat to it, and it was just a lot of, oh, I've got to use this because it's the new hot thing, and that I think can distract people from getting real work done sometimes because you always want to be on the cutting edge and using the cool new thing and sacrificing something that maybe works already, but for something that might work a few years down the line. Yeah, I would say generally my personal philosophy is to not worry too much about, let other people compete and do their own thing and focus as much as you can on making your own stuff as good as it can be. Otherwise, it's just going to be a constant rat race where you're constantly trying to keep up with XYZ. Well, thanks everyone for keeping up with us. Thank you.


It's common for pet owners to share their food with their pets. Many pet parents treat their pets similar to children, and it can be difficult to deny anything to your beloved pet. Most foods are harmless and simply offer a tasty treat to your beloved feline. But some foods can be unhealthy for your cat, even if they're perfectly fine for humans to consume. Onions are one of these foods. They have loads of health benefits for you, but for your cat, onions can be a fatal food. Unfortunately, a tiny taste of onion shouldn't drop your cat in its tracks, but if your cat ingests any amount of onion, it should get immediate veterinary attention. In this video, we're going to take a look at why onions are toxic to cats and what you should do if your cat happens to eat an onion. Why are onions toxic to cats? Onions are toxic to cats. Onion toxicity can also be caused by other members of the vegetable group Allium which includes garlic, chives, leek, etc. Onion poisoning can cause dehydration, an upset stomach, and is even fatal in some cases. Onions can also break down the red blood cells in your cat's blood, causing hemolytic anemia, which can happen if your cat ingests onion in any form. Can cats eat any amount of onions? Even in tiny doses, onions can cause numerous health problems for felines. However, the severity of the issues your cat is likely to experience is dose-dependent. If your cat eats only a small amount of onion, then its reaction may not be too severe. That said, it doesn't take much onion to cause a major reaction and potentially deadly consequences. For this reason, it's recommended that you seek veterinary assistance without delay. Are raw or cooked onions safe for cats? In most cases, cats will be completely uninterested in raw onions. They are naturally averse to the smell and taste of onions, so it's not likely for your cat to eat one raw. Generally, when a cat eats an onion, it is in some other food. Whether the onion is cooked, raw, powdered, dehydrated, or in any form, the effect is the same. It's toxic for your cat, and any form of onion can cause the same health problems. What about other vegetables in the same genus? Onions are part of the allium genus of vegetables, which also includes other popular plants such as chives, garlic, and leeks. While these are delicious for humans, every plant in the allium family is toxic for your feline. If your cat eats any of these plants, the results will be similar. Your cat can get allium poisoning from garlic or chives just as easily as it can from eating onions. Make sure to keep all of these out of your cat's reach to prevent any emergencies from taking place. If you decide to feed your feline food from your plate, take care to ensure that no garlic, onion, chives, or other allium plants were used to season or flavor it. What should you do if your cat eats onions? One of the problems with cats eating onions is that the side effects can take days to kick in. It might seem like your cat is fine, but several days later, the severe symptoms might start to set in. At this point, it might already be too late. Whenever you notice that your cat has eaten onions or other allium plants, you should contact a vet immediately. They'll likely want you to bring your cat in for in-person assistance unless your cat only ate a very small amount. Whatever you do, don't try to induce vomiting. It's easy to accidentally hurt your cat in the process, so this should be left for a professional to take care of. Treating a cat that ate onions. When you get your cat to the vet, there are several treatments they might try. The first course of action will likely be to induce vomiting, provided your cat has ingested the onion very recently. A blood sample will be collected to determine if the toxicity has caused hemolytic anemia and to what degree. It will also be used to check for any alteration in the liver and kidneys. Which will allow the vet to get a better idea of how to proceed with additional treatments. Supportive care for stomach problems is usually sufficient treatment for felines with less severe symptoms. For those who have eaten a lot of onion, oxygen therapy, four fluids, and blood transfusions could be necessary. Hello. This video is sponsored by Beemix Pets. Are you looking for high quality cat collars at an affordable cost? Check out, BeemixPets.com. Use coupon code KittenLife, to get 20% off. Symptoms of onion toxicity in cats. Onion toxicity results in homolysis, or the breakdown of red blood cells. Common clinical signs noted after a feline has ingested onion includes. Panting. Elevated heart rate. Weakness. Hematuria, blood in the urine. Hemolytic anemia or hind's body anemia, breakdown of red blood cells. Vomiting. Diarrhea. Dyspnea. Liver damage. Lethargy. Contact dermatitis. Skin exposure. Collapse. Causes of onion toxicity in cats. An onion can become toxic to a feline if more than 1 gram per 5 pounds of body weight is ingested. Onion powder has a high toxicity rate and is potentially more potent than a fresh onion. Onion toxicity in cats is caused by the oxidant present in onions, and propyl disulfide. Cats have a high sensitivity to red blood cell oxidation, due to the larger surface area for oxidizing agents to attach to the cell. When the oxidant, and propyl disulfide is digested and enters the bloodstream, the body interprets this irregular oxidant as a foreign invader. As the oxidant has already attached to the red blood cell and cannot readily be removed, the body destroys the cells in an attempt to remove the harmful substance. The end result is homolysis or the breakdown of red blood cells. Diagnosis of onion toxicity in cats. The veterinarian will begin the diagnostic process with a physical examination and a review of your cat's medical history. He or she will ask about your cat's current diet, including table scraps or ingredients in her raw food diet. Onion toxicity in cats is commonly diagnosed through the examination of a cat's red blood cells. As hemolytic anemia is a common clinical sign of onion toxicity, the presence of Heinz bodies on the edge of a red blood cell, seen microscopically, will indicate oxidative injury. The diagnostic tool to reveal this clinical sign is called a blood smear, requiring only a small sample of blood from the feline. Hemolytic anemia is also a clinical sign of several other common feline diseases, so your veterinarian will likely request a biochemistry profile imaging to complete the differential diagnosis. Treatment of onion toxicity in cats. No specific antidote is available for onion toxicity and the condition is mainly treated with supportive care. The feline may be hospitalized and administered intravenous fluid therapy. The fluid therapy is used to flush the body of the toxin and give the body time to stop hemolyzing its red blood cells. In most cases, once the ingestion of the toxin has ceased, the cat's bone marrow will begin creating new, healthy red blood cells to replace the previously destroyed cells. In severe blood loss cases, the feline may require a blood transfusion to replenish the body's blood supply. Recovery of onion toxicity in cats. Improvement following treatment of onion toxicity will be seen within hours to a day, depending on the cat's toxic state. Once the feline is stable, the veterinarian may choose to run additional lab work including an examination of the blood and urine to ensure the body's organs are functioning at full capacity. Follow-up appointments are not necessarily required, but the veterinarian may choose to have your cat reevaluated if a blood transfusion was required in the treatment process. Onions and other plants in the allium family such as garlic and chives are highly toxic to cats. If your cat eats any form of these plants, including raw, cooked, powdered, dehydrated, or otherwise, the results will be unpleasant at least and fatal at the worst. Hopefully, you'll never have to deal with such an issue. But if you do find that your cat has eaten allium plants, contact your veterinarian immediately for treatment. If you enjoyed this video, kindly press the like button. Also don't forget to subscribe with notifications on, so that you don't miss out on videos like this. Thank you for watching.


Welcome to Guyano and the Guyane Defense Force. This is important because as armies, defense forces, constabularies, and police forces, we are required to operate effectively and efficiently in any environment or circumstances. And I'm confident that exercise trade range 2021 will achieve its objective and will be a resounding success.


I'm Jo Neal, Professor of Psychopharmacology at the University of Manchester. I'm also Chair of Drug Sciences Medical Psychedelics Working Group and a trustee for Heroic Hearts UK. Drug Science is the UK's leading independent organisation providing evidence-based information about drugs. So we're all about education and research, but the ultimate aim of the working group is to enable patient access on the NHS. And this is a much needed medicine for people. So I am a scientist. I'm a drug discovery scientist. And I've worked all my career to develop better medicines for psychiatry. And this is through animal work. So it's very early stage drug discovery. And I've worked on many different illnesses. So it's modelling in the animals for addiction, for depression, for schizophrenia, for anxiety, OCD, for all the sort of significant mental disorders. And in all that time we have come nowhere. So we have not developed any new medicine or therapy through my work at least, that's made a difference to patients. And in fact the original medicines for psychiatry, so the original antidepressant and the original antipsychotic, the original mood stabilisers, they were discovered by serendipity, which is kind of typical of kind of drug discovery research. And that was in the 1950s. And we're still using medicines based on those today. So compared to cardiovascular medicine or cancer biology, really psychiatry has not come very far. And there is an enormous need for better treatments for mental health. We're in a mental health crisis. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated that. And current treatments do not work well for people, particularly with severe mental health disorders, like severe depression, like post-traumatic stress disorder. Addictions, anorexia. These disorders are very hard to treat. And with the traditional antidepressants, for example, what we call the SSRIs, the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, a third of people do not respond at all. And they might try up to six different antidepressants and they're treatment resistant, then they're still not responding. A third of people will go into remission, but these are people who are not severely unwell. And a third of people have a response, but it doesn't last. And it costs the economy about 100 billion in the UK, and that's in terms of people not being able to work, lack of productivity, and as well all the kind of attempts at treatment. So psychedelic medicine is a complete paradigm shift, and it's a revolution in psychiatry, and it could not have come at a better time. And of course, this is not new. Indigenous people have known that psychedelics have healing powers. They've been using them for thousands of years in cannabis. So these are plant medicines. So we're talking about salicybin, a component of magic mushrooms. DMT, the active ingredient of ayahuasca, which comes from the banisteriopsis vine that grows in South America, and they brew this to make ayahuasca. And in fact, DMT has just been put through a clinical trial in London for severe depression, and the results are absolutely extraordinary. So it was a small trial, 35 people, but after two doses of DMT, 50% of people were in remission after 12 weeks. And that's not the kind of results that we get in psychiatry trials in drug discovery. In fact, these trials have been largely unsuccessful, the clinical trials for new drugs in psychiatry. And Big Pharma pulled out of this area 15 years ago, so there is no big industry working for new medicines for psychiatry. It's all smaller biotechs, universities. And that's, again, that's left patients bereft of new treatments. So again, psychedelics. The psychedelic industry is now booming, and many people who were working for traditional pharma are now working for these psychedelic companies, which is great because they are hugely experienced scientists and doctors. And of course LSD. So LSD was discovered by Albert Hoffman in 1938, quite well-known history now. He was working for Sandals, a big pharmaceutical company. They knew this was important, but they didn't know what to do with it. They didn't know what it would treat. So they handed it, it wasn't illegal in those days. They handed it out to psychiatrists, psychologists, anybody equipped to do studies. And there were over a thousand research publications before 1971 on LSD and its medicinal properties. So for addictions, Humphrey Osmond treated 2,000 people with substance use disorder with LSD, and he got a 45% abstinence rate. Alcoholics anonymous is seven. So extraordinarily beneficial for addictions, for tobacco addiction, for the existential anxiety and depression that occurs with a terminal diagnosis. There was a lot of work done in those days, and for neurological conditions as well. So for conditions like phantom limb pain. You know, this isn't completely new. There is a big literature on the medicinal benefits of psychedelics, but the counter-culture revolution appeared in the 60s. People like Timothy Leary wanting most people to take a psychedelic, the sort of tune in, drop out. The Nixon administration were fighting a war in Vietnam and they did not want people who would not, you know, the effect that psychedelics have in the brain on your subsequent behavior, connectedness to nature, empathy, connectedness to other people. That was not a mindset that the government wanted. So they ramped up the war on drugs in 1971, and they put psychedelics into schedule one of the UN Convention and made it a class A drug. Even though we know that they are relatively safe and, you know, compared to alcohol, if you do the David Knutz done the analysis, the multi-cranteer decision analysis of all drugs, alcohol is what causes the most harm to yourself and to society. Heroin crack cocaine. These are all relatively harmful drugs, but psychedelics really are causing very, very little harm to people or to society. In fact, as we know, they're likely to be beneficial to society. At this time, we need more connectedness to nature. There are four aspects of psychedelic medicine that I think is really important for people to understand. So they heal people. And in psychiatry, we don't do that. That's not a word we use. We give people a medicine that they have to take every day, and we manage their symptoms and enable them to kind of cope with having this illness. And actually, psychedelics heal people and they no longer meet the criteria for having that disorder. For example, in the MAPS trial, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies, led by Rick Doblin, a phase three trial, that's a big trial for PTSD. PTSD is extremely difficult to treat. Psychiatrists really don't have much in the way of medicines to treat this. There's a lot of therapy needed. Lots of people don't respond. 67% of people after three doses of ecstasy of MDMA, which is also a psychedelic, no longer met the criteria for having PTSD. As with the DMT results, these results are absolutely extraordinary. And that is because of the way psychedelics work in the brain. The effects are extremely long-lasting. So after the three doses of ecstasy, people six months later were still well. I spoke to a combat veteran who took two doses of psilocybin in Amsterdam in hotel room.  We would suggest you do this. I spoke to him in January 2019. Sorry, he had his experience in January 2019. I spoke to him in August 2019 and he was still well. And he's now in medical school and I speak to him quite regularly and he hasn't used psilocybin again. So that experience, that encounter with a strong pharmacological agent, we know that they interact with the serotonin 2A receptor. We know that they increase the release of glutamate in the brain. The mechanism is complicated. The pharmacology is extremely complicated but very, very exciting. And what happens is that the brain is reset. So we know that they switch off the default mode network because the brain is divided into a series of networks and this is kind of the top-down control of the brain. So that is turned off while the psychedelic is on board in the system and this enables bits of the brain to communicate with each other, other networks that are kind of prevented from talking to each other and it produces ego dissolution and people come out of that with a completely different perspective on their own behaviour, on their own mental state and the reason that they became unwell, it's usually some kind of trauma, they're able to see that and actually able to forgive perpetrators and it is the most extraordinary healing experience for people. So that's one thing. The effects are very long-lasting because of that release of glutamate. What we see is neuroplasticity. So that's an increase in connections between the neurons and increase in synapses. So those are the connections between the neurons. So you see more synapses, you see enhanced connectivity and those effects are very long-lasting and that probably explains why the effects persist for so long. So this is a complete paradigm shift.  That's just how it's going to work and clinicians always have to balance the benefits versus the side effects. But if you take a medicine once or twice or maybe you need it once a year, sort of refresher for your brain and your behaviour, you completely avoid side effects. So it's a complete paradigm shift in how we think about mental illness and how we treat it. The other thing is that these medicines are remarkably safe. So the way they work, they don't have a lot of effects all over the body that lots of other drugs have. That makes them very safe. It's, of course, an extreme psychological experience. Ego death is very frightening for people. But in the clinical setting with the psychologists there, with a great deal of preparation and integration, so we talk about set and setting. So the person must be in the right mindset to do this. They must be mentally very prepared because it's a very intense experience and they must be in the right setting with the right people in the right environment. That's extremely important. And then because when you're undergoing the psychedelic experience, you can't make any sense of it. You're not in that position. You're just going through this, but it's afterwards that you need an awful lot of integration and help with a trained psychologist to help you make sense. But it might be a while, I spoke to a combat veteran last week, it took him five months after the experience to really start to see all the benefits for his own mental health and his own healing. And we have done some analysis on the pharmacology and how safe these medicines are. When you take them, you get an increase in blood pressure and heart rate because of the effects of the serotonin system on the blood vessels. So you get constriction of the blood vessels, but that doesn't last very long and that resolves pretty quickly after you've taken the drug. So unless you have a heart, a serious heart condition, you won't experience any, you're unlikely to experience any adverse effects. And what something we're interested in is the drug-drug interactions because at the moment for the clinical trials, people have to give up their antidepressant before they can take the psychedelic because they also work on the serotonin system and there's a potential of a drug interaction there. But actually in the small trials where they've investigated this, there is no adverse interaction. And there is a possibility that the presence of an antidepressant could reduce the impact of the psychedelic because of pharmacological competition. But in fact, that doesn't seem to happen either. That's something we need to do more work on. But of course, there are probably 130 at least clinical trials registered for psychedelics for a range of disorders. Psychedelics also have a powerful anti-inflammatory effect and Charles Nichols is the expert on this. That is a complicated mechanism but it seems to be an inhibition of TNF-alpha. One of the main cytokines, it's a pro-inflammatory cytokine. So that gives you the potential for treating inflammatory disorders. So inflammatory viral disorder, asthma disorders characterised by an increase in inflammation and those are very difficult disorders to treat as well. So as well as psychiatric conditions, psychedelics have the potential to treat peripheral disorders like I said, inflammatory diseases. But also neurological conditions. There were a lot of studies done on LSD and pain seems to be remarkably effective at reducing pain and in some studies, more effective than opiates. Cluster headache is a condition they call suicide headaches and these are excruciating pain that come and go throughout your life and they can last for days or hours and psychedelics seem to have a beneficial effect on these and at the moment there's nothing to treat that. So the message really is that psychedelic medicine can heal people. The relatively few side effects, the side effect burden is very minimal because you don't take them very often. They're relatively safe. I mean no drug is completely safe without risks. It's an intense psychological experience for sure so people need to be ready for that and of course it's all about dose so nobody should be taking too much of anything. As a pharmacologist that's a really important message for people. You shouldn't take too much or too often. But the law is making it very difficult for people like me who want to research it in the lab, people who want to do clinical trials because it's in schedule one of the UN Convention. So the definition of a schedule one drug is no therapeutic indication. UK university academics and NHS scientists, clinicians have an exemption from the UK government to work with all schedule two drugs or drugs in lower schedule. And these are potentially far more harmful. So drugs like heroin, cocaine, amphetamine, fencycline, ketamine, these are all in schedule two. So I can use these experiments to do science with these drugs without needing any special permission from the UK government. But as soon as I want to work on some cannabis products or a psychedelic, I need to apply to our UK government for a controlled drugs license. And that's bureaucratic, it's time consuming, it costs a great deal of money. There are great time delays because the home office are understaffed and that is stopping people doing research. So I was doing an animal study with Silo Saiban and it took me a year to get my controlled drugs license. One of the concerns about psychedelic assisted psychotherapies that the price is quite high, it costs a lot because of the working hours for psychotherapists and all this stuff. How can we make sure that it will be mainstreamed or it will be accessible and available for the general public and also for the not so middle-classish people? Absolutely, because at the moment ketamine treatment is available in the UK and that's for severe depression and that has been shown to have good effects for people. £8,000, you can only go to a private clinic. So the government must fund the NHS and they must support the NHS to deliver this therapy. But the companies that are developing these medicines are potentially going to make a lot of profit. They also have to work with the NHS and enable this to be provided. We need training for psychotherapists. We're going to need a lot more and clinicians. So this must be a unified effort and it must come from the top. This has to come from the government. I know some of the companies are committed to reciprocity. That is kind of giving back to Indigenous people as well because these medicines have been used by them. We must protect where these medicines come from. You know, Peru and there is, of course, a psychedelic tourism industry building up, which is not particularly helpful and ethically, potentially not very desirable. But we must enable this to happen. Economically, though, the figures should stack up. We have done an economic analysis of psychedelic assisted therapy compared to antidepressant treatment as usual. Of course, antidepressant drugs are very cheap because they're off-patent now. But because they don't work very well, there are so many people that are not in work that psychedelic assisted therapy, because it heals people, it enables them to contribute and function in society. So the figures do stack up, but actually at the moment, because it costs so much to run a trial, psychedelic assisted therapy is very expensive. One way to reduce the cost for the NHS is to have group therapy. And I think there are certain groups of people or types of patients who would prefer that. Certainly the combat veterans for that, it seems to suit them to go together. They have the same experience of Afghanistan, of Iraq. And that camaraderie that they had when they were at war, that's something that seems to be part of the healing process for them. But I think for many people, it's very important to have that group support. So that could reduce a therapist's time because you wouldn't need a therapist for every person. The other thing is the group integration. And I know that that has happened, that has been a patient-led development after some of the clinical trials. So that and peer-led support groups, I think that works very well for people. You want to discuss your experience with somebody who's had a similar experience and has maybe had a similar mental health issue to begin with. So there are lots of ways that we can reduce the cost. It's not just one person in a room for eight hours, psilocybin-assisted therapy with a clinician and a psychotherapist and then one-on-one psychotherapy for six months later. There are many, many ways that patients can lead on this. And actually that will reduce the cost. The other way is to use a shorter acting psychedelic like DMT. So the small pharma trial that I explained at the beginning, the results were... I mean, the chief medical officer running the trial did not expect the results to be as good, and I didn't. The results are absolutely extraordinary. Of course, we need bigger, bigger trials to confirm the results. That's a very short-acting psychedelic and they were giving it IV. So it's in and out of your system very quick. The whole experience probably takes about an hour. So you don't need to have somebody in the clinic for so long, although, well, you will need to keep them in to make sure that they are okay. It's quite a... It's potentially a much more intensive experience than psilocybin. But you won't need to have them in a room with one or two fully qualified practitioners for eight hours. So that's another way that we could potentially reduce the cost is having different psychedelics that don't last so long. Of course, there's interest in healing without the psychedelic experience, but I think that for some conditions for sure, for neurology, for inflammatory diseases, but for severe mental health, I don't really see that coming. But I know there are companies developing those drugs. What do you think about those efforts in the pharmaceutical industry that try to kind of reduce the experience itself and increase the neuroplasticity? Is it possible to have psychedelic medications minus the trip? Yes. Oh, yeah, the pharmacology is there. We probably understand enough about the neuroplasticity to be able to... or certainly reduce the psychedelic experience, I think. You're probably moving away from the 2A receptors that they do activate. I think it's a little way off, but the technology is there. And I know there are companies working on third-generation psychedelics that will have the neuroplasticity effects or will have the neurological... the anti-inflammatory effects for sure. I don't know about... I mean, neuroplasticity can be beneficial, I think, for people without that psychedelic experience. But for trauma, for addictions, for severe depression, I think the psychedelic experience is what really is working for people. Is there a lot of suspicion or negativity among how public health professionals in the UK if it comes to psychedelics? I think that's lessening. So psychedelics are massively stigmatized by the press, and they have been up until probably the last five years. But now there's probably an article in the papers or a documentary. Quite regularly, David Knutt will be interviewed some of the experts, Rick Doblin. HBO have got a series of Netflix, Michael Pollan. So certainly the public opinion is shifting. We conducted Up Drug Science, a YouGov survey. So that in the UK is all demographic. So it's people who voted Brexit, Remain, Labour, Tory, all over the UK geographically. And 55% of people supported bringing in psychedelic assisted therapy. 60% of people said that they would consider it if they were mentally very unwell. 68% of people wanted to see this coming in for people with a terminal diagnosis. And I think it was about 60% for combat veterans as well. So that shows you... What was interesting was that the people who didn't want to see it coming in were people who'd had bad trips and bad experiences themselves. And you can understand why they're very nervous about it coming in. You know, we need to be very careful. For the clinical trials, people are assessed extremely carefully. And many people don't get into a trial. So we need to be extremely careful. There'll be some people who really should not. People with a risk of psychosis, family history should not. Which is sad because the drugs for schizophrenia and psychosis have a heavy side effect burden. So healthcare professionals is an interesting one. When I speak to... Well, not being a clinician, I don't speak to them so much. Again, I think the situation is changing and people are becoming more accepting. But we've still a long way to go. I think the older guys who were there in the beginning in the 60s and remember all the research that was being conducted. And I think the younger clinicians are very receptive. But my understanding it's the sort of middle age who have, of course, been indoctrinated in a way. Drugs are bad.  Cannabis is bad. We'll give you psychosis. None of those things are true. So it's really about education. Psychedelics are also used outside of the medical realm by traditional healers or different kinds of communities. What do you think about that? How should the government regulate that if it should? Well, all governments are doing this in their own way, I think. And countries are doing this differently. So in the States, quite a few cities have decriminalized psychedelics.  That's just crazy. We should at least... These are plant medicines. They're used for personal healing. And people should be allowed to do that safely. And our current drug laws are making it dangerous and difficult for people. People should not be in fear of making their own mental health better. And they should be able to access really evidence-based information. This should be publicly available for people. So in Alberta, they have legalized psychedelic assisted therapy. In Oregon, it is legal in the state. There are a couple of Colorado have voted to do this. Of course, Australia have just voted to do this as well, to legalize MDMA and psilocybin for assisted therapy. But we need to keep practitioners safe. We need to keep people who want to use these plants.  Many, many people use these, drive them. You can buy spores. It's not illegal, as far as I understand it, to buy spores and preparing them. Then it's, of course, illegal. People should be allowed to do this. And if we change our laws, at least to decriminalize psychedelics. But we should state-regulate them. People should be allowed to buy them safely and use them safely. And to access good information and to access support. Because people who are using them for their own personal well-being How can we make sure that it is not charlatans who are kind of abusing these substances and abusing the naivety of some people? I mean, that is a very good question. And even in the trials there have been some, people are very vulnerable when they're in a psychedelic, having a psychedelic experience. And people have been taken advantage of. And on retreat centers as well. We're all responsible. Everybody who's involved in this field, I think, personal practitioners, people running clinical trials. Companies making these medicines because some companies will grow the product. But I think as it starts to become more widely available, it will not be sustainable and companies will be synthesizing. The companies have a big responsibility to indigenous people to give back to the people who are the experts. I don't know how we keep everybody safe. I don't know how you have a register, I think, of people who are qualified to practice in this area. We need more training. We'll have to have more experienced practitioners. My understanding is that the Scottish government, the Scottish government do have some independence and they do have some autonomy over their own constitution from Westminster, which is a very good thing. My understanding is that they have control of their own health system. And this is a health issue. So there will be ways that the Scottish government can approve... I don't know whether they can approve this as a medicine without going to Westminster. Certainly the police can de-prioritize for sure and can decriminalize without going through Westminster. The police commissioner is my understanding. But I think with the Scottish government having control of their own health system, they can probably enable this to happen sooner in Scotland. I mean, that is my hope, but I don't understand Scottish law well enough. The MSPs, though, can lobby Westminster and they need to be very proactive in getting the laws changed because minimum we need to reschedule, we need to decriminalize and we need to bring in psychedelic assisted therapy. People in the UK are dying. We have the highest rate of drug-related deaths in Europe. It's particularly high in Scotland. People need a medicine for addiction and severe people are killing themselves. Combat veterans kill themselves.  We need medicine that will help these people and we know from the trials and from the work that went on before in 1971 and from Indigenous people. We know a lot about these medicines. It's not like bringing a new drug onto the market. That's what's so exciting for me. We have so much information, medically, scientifically, personal use from people. We have a lot of people who use these drugs for their own spirituality, for their own wellbeing. It should be so much easier to bring this into practice than a new chemical entity, which, as I told you about at the beginning, I've spent all my life trying to get them into patients and we've never succeeded. I've worked on a drug that started in Glaxo and I worked on it for probably 10 years. This drug is probably 30 years old now and it's far too slow, people are dying. So I would like to think that Scotland, because they do have some control of their own constitution and their own laws, they should be leading the way on this and telling Westminster how to do this and I think they badly need to do this.


There's a lot that goes into demonstrating, the skydive is just a small piece of what you're the display that you're making. And then once you get out your instincts take over that you've trained this and you know how to do it and then it's generally not scary anymore. 13 years this is the beginning of my 14th year. The choices that I had made prior set it up for me a little bit, ended up joining the reserve and then when I was in college I started skydiving as a civilian and then when I found out about the team and that I could skydive for the army it seemed like a great opportunity that I had to look into. When I got back from basic training I wanted to like celebrate being an adult and I had a skydiver in one of my classes and so I chatted with her a little bit and since I had a little bit of background in it that's the route I ended up going. I went through the ground school that you go through I did my first jump it went terribly didn't do anything they told me to do and I lost both my instructors and I pulled 10,000 feet and I landed in a cornfield so I've gotten a little bit better since then so I just kept at it and I made it through started jumping on my own. I went on a deployment and when I came back I had decided that I was gonna try out for the Golden Knights. I have I'm just coming up on 8,000 jumps. It definitely is mentally and physically exhausting to do that but that's the best way to prepare for competition and you still have that performance anxiety so the best way to combat that is to just do as much training as you can and trust yourself and trust your training that you'll you'll know how to perform when you get out of there. We're going to dirt dive what we're gonna go through so you want to take care of any of those unknowns and get rid of any of the variables that you can and make sure those are set. We'll do our pinchecks to make sure everything is where it needs to be on the rig and you didn't bump it in a certain way. Then we go ahead and get on the bus we also go over what we're gonna do again and then when we get out to the plane we do another pin check and we'll dirt dive everything again and then get on the plane we'll do our final pin check and then we can visualize and get ready for what we're going to do in the sky. When I originally came to the team I was on the gold demonstration team.  It was kind of cool to come back to that and to get to experience that again because it takes a little bit to learn. It gives you that cohesion with the group. Right before we're about to get out we'll do handshakes with each other and a lot of people have like individual handshakes. Those handshakes can be like an inside joke with that person so that's just kind of a little bit of a flavor of the current team. It's almost like learning a new language. Flying is it's like a body language that you have to learn. I'm chasing that feeling of when I know what I'm doing without thinking about it and the aircraft can become like an extension of me. The world meet in 2016 my women's four-way team won that year and it was kind of the culmination of a six-year project and in 2018 at the world meet I was on the eight-way team and we won there too. I was only the second woman in skydiving history to be an eight-way world champion. Last year 2021 two other women were added to that but it's a it's a pretty small small group there. One competition that I'll never forget was at US Nationals. It was with my women's four-way team we were the first women's team to get on the podium at US Nationals so we got third place done plenty where I've gotten gold and silvers but that third place was was was pretty great. There's been 26 women in jumping positions on the team. The women's four-way team was was done and I was the only one that was continuing on in competition I had to really self-advocate for myself to be a part of the A team open lineup for four-way. I convinced them that I at least deserved a a shot nobody ever looked back after that.  I don't think that a lot of women consider that it's something they can do. You know on the road I've had so many people come up to me I didn't know women could do this which is why representation is so important. There are certain gender stereotypes that we're getting better about but some of those stereotypes would not have expected women to be skydivers or in the military. It's just kind of crossing that threshold. I have had a lot of women reach out to me and say that they saw me at a competition or they saw me jumping and that that meant a lot to them. I think that I have been able to to kind of show people that these things are possible for women.


Tell the two halves today, what was the big difference? We won the game 24-17. Excited as hell about it. That's called the National Football League. Excited to win on the road in the division. Huge, huge. I mean, just the way that the season started. Guys kept battling. So proud of this football team, proud to coach them. They compete, and they fight. Whoever's out there, we were able to finish the ball kneeling down on the road.  He knows how to beat these guys. And, you know, sometimes he over-thinks things sometimes, and it's just really cool the type of player he is. It's savvy. It started in training camp the way that he practiced before hurting his hand. You could just see that he was dowed in and was going to find a way to help us and certainly impact the game. Why would he want you to say that?  And each and every week, and you see him, he knows how valuable he is to our football team. And I just, I love, you know, who he is and what he's always been about in this league just from his journey. Can you talk about how I've given you? Yeah, I mean, give those guys a lot of credit. You know, there wasn't a whole lot of seams. You know, we know how talented he is. We know what they can do when there are seams. And I give those guys credit. We stayed on, stayed in where we were supposed to be. And it looked like there was an edge. And, you know, even getting the fumbles and the turnovers really were the difference. Well, you know, I mean, this is a good defense. They're a fast defense. And, you know, give them a lot of credit. They made some adjustments there in the second half.  And but it was good, you know, it was really good. And Derrick ran hard. I thought that the coaches had a really good plan for how we were going to try to run the football on these guys that hadn't given up a whole lot of yards. So, you know, that looked more like our running game. And again, it wasn't, you know, perfect.  I mean, I think that that's what you're going to have to do is try to find ways to win. Coming up with some huge turnovers, taking care of the football, getting some special teams to be able to create some field position or flip the field. Coming up with huge stops defensively when, you know, maybe we're not at our best. And they keep fighting and competing. Well, just looking at it quicker, you know, I mean, we have to be able to handle that better and make sure that we, you know, we're putting that ball in the dirt, you know, just being in field goal range. And then, you know, just trying to ask that there was a quick, you know, fourth or first down.  Great. It was great. And, you know, we challenged him. You know, I challenged him all week is finding ways to help us continue and to understand how critical his role on special teams is, but, you know, where he can help us on offense. And I thought that, you know, Ryan was able to find him and progress through on a goal line.  Derrick made a great block on the safety. They pressured and Chig was able to get free down the sidelines. And so it's all we were talking about success and being able to share success, you know.  So that's who we are and that's what we have to be. We wanted to try to win the foot. Are you talking to reference in the end of the game? Just trying to win the game. You know, I figured that, you know, first down would win it. We loved the call. You know, got a good look and was able to execute and Chig stayed in balance. Just all the things that we talked about about four minute, you know, so where we weren't great last week in four minute, had two, you know, close runs. And at the second one, Derrick and Tori were over there arguing with each other about who he tripped over.  And, you know, I thought it was well-executed. Chig caught it secure to ball and stayed in balance. I mean, he just, he has to be in a position where he can play as much as he possibly can from conditioning. You know, we ask him to play a certain style and be able to play with great effort. And, you know, so he's working on his conditioning because the more that he's out there, he can continue to help us. He's a physical player and has shown that he's continuing to get better. We ask all players outside of two minute that if you can't play the next play to take a knee, you know, that's a safety thing so that they, you know, are taking a knee and they stop the play.   You know, so outside of two minutes, you know, we're asking guys that if they can't play the next play physically is to take a knee. And I know that guys don't like to do that. I mean, this is not anything to do with their courage or their toughness, but it's about being able to operate and get the next guy in there and make sure that we're doing everything we can do to look at your health. We'll take a look. I know that Joe was involved in the rake. I think on the replay. So he's played a lot of football, you know, so that's nothing new to him. But, you know, impressive to be able to come in here in a couple of days' notice and go out there and then rotate in whatever fashion he got and however many snaps and the guys of football guys played a lot of football. I think we have to be. And if we're not, then I have to make sure that we are and that we're, you know, doing everything that we can do during the week. But we'll find out how many guys we have available on Wednesday, figure out what the plan is, figure out what the practice schedule will look like and try to give ourselves the best chance next week.  And I told the team before that success in this life means nothing if you don't have people to share it with. And we have a whole bunch of guys in there that should be sharing this. So if you ask them about the second half, I hope they tell you what I told them to tell you. We're excited to win. And then it says we're gonna enjoy it and we're gonna get back to work. I mean, I just think that it's not a mental thing. It's an execution thing. It's making sure that we're predicting the future. We also were a benefit of some great defensive turnovers short field. So, you know, there's a million different reasons. But there's good plays in all three phases.  We have to play better in the red zone defensively.  And, you know, we need to continue to score touchdowns when we get down there like we have. How extreme is this? I don't know. I don't have anything to compare it to except for last year, I guess. So, you know, we'll get on the phone. And I know we got some guys that on the practice squad that, you know, are itching to play and might get an opportunity. We feel great. I mean, come on the road against a good team division opponent that plays us hard each and every time we play them. Feels great. You know, feels good celebrating that locker with guys, you know, building some momentum here. So, you know, want to keep the foot on the gas. Yeah, we know they're going to play us tough each and every time we play them. It's a physical team. It's a fast defense. You know, like you said, they're built a lot like us and they're a well coached team.  And today we're able to fight our way and come out with a win. Yeah, I loved it. I loved the play call. You know, I knew they'd be all packed in there. Obviously, you know, we were able to get it first down and then it was going to seal the game. So, you know, excited to hear that play call come in and Chick did a great job of getting his depth, making himself available, then getting down, staying in bounds and into the game. Yeah, it was huge. It was a play we liked during the week. And, you know, to get down there, I think that was the first time we got down there.  It worked just, you know, just like we wanted it to. So, when a play that you put in, you know, for a specific opponent comes in and works like that, it feels really good and, you know, happy for Robert. You know, he's done a lot of great things for us so far. You know, he's a professional and he's being in the right spot. So good to see it pay off with him in the end zone. Yeah, I know we came out, we played well on the first half and then, you know, second half was what it was. And we found a way to go get it first down when it mattered at the end. So, proud of our guys and the way we battled together, you know, throughout the game and offense was able to make a play, make a few plays there at the end when it counted. Get that first down and seal the game. I didn't feel that. You know, I felt like our guys were responding. You know, the attitude was great on the sideline. Guys are ready to get back out there and try to take advantage of the next possession. So, I felt the energy was good. The attitude was there. The focus was there. So, I'm proud of our guys and the way we just stayed with it and we're able to make plays at the end. Yeah, I don't know. I'll have to think back through everything. But it was great to see that compliment in football. We talked about it all week playing together, playing as a team, not offense, not defense, not special teams, but feeding off of each other and playing as a team. And having defense create those turnovers and then offense turn them into touchdowns was huge and definitely obviously helped us win this game. Oh, and Derek's running, you know, everything kind of functions well. You know, offensive line did a great job of getting him some holes. He was running hard, running physical, you know, running through some arm tackles. Thought he made some really good cuts out there. So, you know, he did a heck of a job for us and he's done that and he'll probably continue to do that. Oh, we got shot up short there, got into a situation where we run the field goal on and I don't know exactly what happened there, but we weren't able to get it on in time. Yeah, there's things in both halves that we did well. Things in both halves that we have to clean up, you know, so got to look at the things we did well, build on them, clean up the things that we need to clean up and, you know, keep stacking wins. At the end of the day, our job is to go out there and win football games, one and O each and every week and we're able to do that. I know what ideal is, is winning. You know, I don't really care how it comes, you know, our job is to win. And whether it's quote unquote ugly or quote unquote pretty, like it doesn't matter. W is a W and our job is to score more points than the other team and finish each and every week one and O as best we can. So, you know, proud of our guys and the way we've battled. We don't blink when things may take a downturn and we believe in each other. We trust the guys playing beside us and, you know, on the other side of the ball.  It's not a perfect game. So just to have that belief in each other that, you know, defense is gonna make a player. Offense is gonna make a play when we need it. It means a lot and we've shown up big in the last couple of weeks. I don't know if those hands are belly. I'm not quite sure which one it was, but a heck of a play by Thierre, you know, so to get his hands on it initially and then finish it with a catch. I don't think I've seen too many of those. So a huge play by Thierre and built that momentum that you mentioned in the first half. Well, it's huge. He's done a couple of good things for us throughout the season so far and I think that momentum is building. So he's a talented guy, obviously. And so it's fun to see him making those plays for us out on the offensive side of the ball. He's got so many talents and it's great with the ball in his hand.  Yeah, it's, I mean, just kind of comes to you in the game. We work it, you know, in practice as well. Just changing your arm angle on different throws, especially in the middle of the field there, right there between the tackles. You know, you're kind of just doing it on air, right? When you're practicing it and then when you get in the game, it's just feeling it. You're feeling it out and you have those banked reps where you've been able to make those throws. So, you know, it's not a big deal. Oh, it feels great. You know, it didn't start the way we wanted to but we've battled and we found ways to win. And that's what we want to do is be a team that find ways to win. And I think that's what a true team is. A team that plays together, a team that doesn't blink in the face of adversity and finds ways to win no matter how the game's going. So I think we're finding a way right there and we've done it the last two weeks. Now we just got to keep stacking these wins. Oh, it's great.  I have so much respect for this organization and the way they play. So to come play a good team here, you know, a few years in a row and then get wins is a good thing for the Titans. The division opponent always tough. Great win, great team win. And I'm glad we were able to finish the game out and the W, I don't care about that. We won, happy we were able to make plays on offense and do what we need to do to get the W. I mean, stats and stats, it's glad we won. I mean, just spot the will.  I feel like everybody did a great job of doing that. Said to do my job of trying to get north and south and as much as I can out of play. Yeah, it's always tough when we play these guys. We're very familiar with each other. We got going in the first half and you know, it didn't really get anything going in the second half and just got to have emphasis on that and be better. So it's all right, it's been better. You know, just build off this win and you know, leading to next week and you're ready for the next opponent. But it's a great win. I'll be able to finish it out. I mean, it's tough to win here. Tough crowd, they've always been solid in all three phases. So I'm just credit to our coaches and the whole organization and how we prepare, each and every game. Yeah, just making my reads and was able to get outside. And you know, like you said, maybe one guy missed and got in the end zone. So we got to play everybody on offense. Good job. I feel like these guys played hard. Played all four quarters. They were huge for us. And you know, I feel like they held it down. You know, they were working hard all week to, you know, do those things. I feel like they accomplished what they wanted to come and do. I can't compare being the father. It was just a little nice organization, the foundation thing they were doing. And I wanted to contribute somehow and shed light on what Vanessa is doing and you know, their family. But far as comparing with fathers, I can't speak on how far he was. I just try to be the best that I can be for my daughter.   He can get back out there and continue to play. Yeah, always very excited, man. She's been working hard since he got here. And it's always good to see the young guys, their hard work pay off. What we're saying in the huddle, get the first down and we win the game. I mean, it was simple, you know.  So probably so, you know, it was good. I was excited to see him, I didn't get his pick.  I was very excited for him.


There's so much change. It's like we're in a blizzard. As we go forward, there isn't going to be one institutional form. I think there are going to be characteristics that describe post-secondary education. I think we're entering a time where reflection, learning how to extract meaning from your experience, whether it's a formal learning experience or an informal personal learning experience. In other words, I did this. Now, what did I learn? How did it change me? Who am I today that I was not before I started? So you're going to see real emphasis on those kinds of things, evidence, and you're going to see much less large group learning and much more small group and individual learning where learning support, advice, counsel, whether it is technologically based or human or in a likelihood both, is going to come as central as the lecturer used to be central. So we're shifting, I think the whole paradigm is shifting towards a support environment as opposed to a one-person teaching many environment. There are two answers to the question of the value of a degree in today's economy. On the one hand, it is abundantly clear that people who have a baccalaureate degree live longer, participate more actively in the economy, earn more, vote more. And so from a point of view of the meta question, is a degree valuable? The answer is, of course it is. Now, on the other hand, is a degree valuable today? There's an article in the USA Today I saw very recently in which they are saying that if you live in a certain place and there's a particular job you want, you can make a lot of money, earn a good living, and do so with very focused training courses at the community college level or sub-baccalaureate level. So I think what's happening is that we are seeing the degree in a different way. Increasingly, it should reflect a choice that people make as opposed to be seen as a requirement for entry into the kingdom. In order for someone to recognize and accept that learning, the knowledge, skills, and ability that a person has or is claiming to have are valid is because they can be verified. We're leaving a time where it was because I say so. So we would have people get a degree and then because the college said so, they were deemed ready for employment. We're now finding increasingly employers saying they may be ready to graduate, but they're not ready to work. They're asking for, as are the funders of higher education and I think K-12, looking for better forms and kinds of evidence that in fact something of value is happening in this transaction called teaching and learning. Either the employer him or herself is going to validate the learning and satisfy themselves ultimately, or they're going to need context. I think the real issue is who's got the evidence, how can they display the evidence, and is that add up to success in the workplace and or success in school.