All right, everyone see my screen, okay, I'll go down the sound just wait here a moment All right today. We're gonna go over Entry strategies and get into some of our analytics And how we can incorporate that with With book map and some of our integrations. I'm John Slazas from Dharma Capital Trading Been involved in trading my whole career Started on the Mercadote exchange floor as part of the whole transition to electronic trading began crypto trading in 2013 or at least Holding and got more involved in 2016 with the launch of Ethereum And I've been supporting professional traders for over 35 years with my Fact-based analytics, so I'm gonna touch base on that a little bit Before we get into it, you know, I just want the disclosure, you know, everything that we're doing here is Educational purposes, so we're not recommending you buy sell Opportunities this is all for you for you to learn for you to help you trade better more effectively More confidence and we if you are trading you should be using risk capital and that money that you need So you can make clear decisions And that's really what we're here to help you do and So our education is aligned with that is to, you know, basically providing you with a Statistical foundation, what's that benchmark, you know, giving you some solid facts that you can go to to Align your your subjective Decision-making your whatever tools or analytics or whatever make you use to make decisions to execute a trade To have a kind of a quantitative baseline, you know And that's what our method does, you know, we incorporate this statistical outside view And by having that, you know, kind of slows down that You know that knee-jerk reaction to trading And so that, you know, we're slowing down your decision-making process to minimize biases So, you know what you have a bias with the subjective indicator or signal or someone said do something You got anchored on being positive or negative on a market from the morning news You know, this helps to kind of give you a reality check of here's what's true And if you haven't read Thinking Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman, I highly recommend it It's a great book that gets into Decision-making and how our, you know, natural biases influence us in those knee-jerk moments and so basically You know having a statistical baseline is going to improve your decision-making process So today we're going to Kind of, you know, define the, you know, What is that baseline? How do you have that, you know, having a foundation? Show you some basic tools that you can use and also some of the tools that we have and you know So how it's so important to have that macro foundation and then when you're executing it Execute it using micro-dynamics You know, so most people when people are analyzing the market, you know, they're basically three approaches, you know You've got your fundamental approach technical analysis and quantitative So I just want to talk a little bit about that, you know, fundamental studies, you know Defining, you know, the cause of market movements. There's, you know, a lot of that's the talking heads on TV looking for, you know, answers You know, we do have governmental reports You know a lot of issues on the fundamental side on that are just They're delayed and you know, sometimes they change these numbers too.  You're in alignment with the fundamentals just doesn't always go that way on actual price action, you know So then, you know, technical analysis is popular Because it's it it definitely easily explains what happened after the fact, you know, it's and what traders need to understand is It's such a lagging indicator And not only is it lagging it's subjective You know, so it there's there's a couple issues with it. It's it's a little seductive because it's easy to See why the market did something in hindsight, it's a lot different story when you're doing it in real time and You know, the other, you know, so How do we get, you know, go from there? Well, we want to have some more objectivity in our decision-making process And so quantitative Analytics, you know, they're focused on facts and probabilities and so what's more likely to occur and You know a lot of times when you're trading and you're dealing off a subjective technical You know signal You're hoping You know, and and you may you know, you're hoping that, you know, this one time The market is not going to perform to what's more likely to occur It's going to perform to what I want it to do, you know, so so it's all about, you know Having a baseline to go back to that's factual and so a factual baseline. So that's what we're gonna kind of get into You know, and again, you know, this is something you need to be aware of that, you know When you are doing technical studies, you know, there's very, you know, they're very subjective do you They can get really complicated.  You've got you know, just All these different studies that are overlaid on top of one another and just you know It gets to the point where it's just overwhelming. You can't do anything and it doesn't make any sense You got these trend lines this indicator study This profile thing and all of a sudden it just it's just a big mess of subjectivity And a lot and and some of the studies that are out there. They're just it's all conjecture that they don't work They might look good, but they just don't work. There's no There's no value in them But someone's selling a course on them because it's something different than no one heard about and you know and the and it looks pretty but It's meaningless You know, there are some good thing, you know, absolutely, you know price action is something to take note of those are factual things And you know, the Dow theory is is good, you know, if you're basically just talking about trends, you know If you have you know markets that you're trending or making, you know higher move highs higher move lows or or there Or if they're trending negatively, they're making lower highs lower lows I mean, that's just a fact and when that facts not true then then then There's a you know, you know the markets in a digestive state. So it's those are night. Those are things to lean on You know the issue with those, you know when it comes to interdate trading they're a little bit thrown out the door and because they There's no real meaning for the big fund managers of Interdate price action. It's just all noise They really don't care the lowest time frame any people any money really looks at is going to be daily But you know, so if we're what I'm getting into here is you know, kind of just concepts of state, you know Is the market trading with you know, is it a momentum state where you're trending or is it a sideways state where there's no trend? and so that's That's what we're going to look at now Getting more into that as I said, you know the issue with technical analysis is subjective, you know But how do we define some structure? You know objectively, you know, I don't really like to use the term support and resistance But that's a term familiar. I look to think in terms of structure either either price structure or market structure or time frame structure And we do that by having a fact focus and so as I mentioned, you know, we you know, when you're talking about, you know really defining some truths You know the interdates, you know was what you call interdates support resistance is a bit meaningless Because fund managers really just care end of the day really care about the clothes because it's all mark to market But you know the time frame structures are important like daily of the daily bar You know, this is just kind of classic and this is something that you should know You should always know that you know that what the previous days, you know structure is this is time frame structure You know, what's the open high low close and I you know and and I'd add to that the midpoint You know and so you've got You know more so you know with now a 24-hour markets, you know the you know the opening and especially if you're talking about crypto Being decentralized. There's you know, is there really an opening or is there really a close? You know, it it's that's some what subjective in of itself But the world's pretty much settled on the you know global standard time that that's the time frame for crypto And so most most, you know, if you look at the daily bar chart on crypto You're going to see that it matches up with the UTC time And so and so that's what we have to follow if you're talking, you know centralized markets You're trading on the Merc and their products are you know different and Absolutely if you're trading futures, you know, that's pretty defined because they're all Primarily off of centralized exchanges and so you have this and then you have the old-school regular trading session open Which is also good facts, you know, I You know and I from trading in the S&P, you know, I'm definitely looking at what the the complete Range of the day, but I'm also interested in yeah, what is the regular trading session? Range versus the you know overnight session because you know when the banks come in they're coming in during the regular trading session primarily So it's you know establishing these fact foundations and so, you know Absolutely on a daily time frame, you know The previous day is high and the previous days low are going to act like natural support and resistance And you can take the midpoint of that range and use it as a momentum Well, simple as that, you know, but you know and how to you know, what are ways to trade this effectively? Well, we need to standardize it, you know, you need to you know, standardize your your your method and You know, we want to get you know, we're getting insight to You know, just these are just basic simple facts that are powerful that are discounted by so many people and in favor of other things that don't work because they're Very there There's a good story behind it or they Or they you know, they did they just don't they they don't know people just don't know It comes down to it Is it the what moves the month the market is money and the major fund managers are what moves the market and they don't care And so if they don't care, it doesn't matter So I mean you can get a lot of insight just from a daily bar is you know, just a lower close It had a range close lower. That's a you know, more of a sell bias You know, we're just we're looking to define some context to give us some insight to you know What's happening in the current trade period? You know setting that that kind of that macro foundation. That's we're gonna where we started And so if we you know, if we're looking at opportunities off this structure, you know There's different strategy themes that we can do we can you know, we could fade momentum into these boundaries You know, we can Trade with momentum, you know, which would be a you know breakout strategies, you know And you know breaking out above the previous day below and we could also use the midpoint as a momentum level to trade You know breakout strategies and and also reversal and you could use that, you know We can actually execute any of these fade breakout or reversals off of any of these price points You know, it'd be at the high the low the close or the midpoint You know different ones are gonna act differently and we need that's those are the things that we need to standardize So, you know, just a classic standard Opportunity is to fade momentum against the previous days high again, this is just you know kind of basic context and What would validate that opportunity, you know transition through the midpoint What would be the target where we'd be going for the previous days law? Simple as that You know identifying a variance around these price points, you know a lot of times you have the market take out the high by a tick or two and so having a metric that identifies that that variance at These price points because you're not going to be if you're fading momentum and you have a negative bias Your expectation is the market is going to trend lower. So trending lower means it's going to make a lower high So for fading to move into into that price point, we're not going to fade at the figure Because our expectations the market is going to top out in front of that figure and That would be true if if the market is going to prove it start to produce lower move highs Because we're expecting a lower trend. So that's what that's what our expect expectations should be And if the market doesn't and it starts to trade above here But it's telling us that it's not making lower move highs and there's a problem with that fade And there's a problem with that bias so how can we you know identify these variances and We can start to look at the In real time we can start to look at order flow events. So You know what's happening in the order book are we you know, where's the resting paper starting to build up? Is it building up in front of that figure? Is it building up? You know beyond that figure, you know, so as we as we're looking, you know using that Previous day structure as our is our foundation You know, what's happening in the microstructure? How is that in alignment? And we can look for you know We can look for resting paper We can we can and see is is there any confluence there with that structure. So again when we're when we're executing a cell fade The expectation is that it that the market is going to fade the momentum should stop in front of that figure And so this is anything that you identify as your resistance and we're looking to sell That should be the expectation and Then you should expect it to trade and and perform perfectly to that And if it doesn't perform perfectly to that that's a note that there could be a problem It's and and it's not the time to start hoping That it's going to turn in your favor It's it's a time to recognize that the market's not performing perfectly to fade a fade strategy and That tells you something that there could be a problem. I need to do something different I need to adjust my tactics. This isn't performing perfectly. There's a problem If it is performing perfectly then there's time it's time to not think that's what the kiss method was invented for Keep it simple Don't think Don't think that you need to get out.  Let the market Play out and let it pay you out and we'll go to some live markets in a little bit here just to identify some of these specific examples of Opportunities, but you know when you have a market that you know, you're fading into momentum and you're and you have that support in the order book You know, that's what you're looking for and especially when you have support in the order book Resting paper and then you've got some imbalance in front of it too, you know And that just in balance meaning that there's not a lot of liquidity In the in the middle and so you have this the potential that you could could have a you know One of these kind of quick reactions through areas that don't have any liquidity and again using these this simple you know fact foundation of You know the previous time period and it doesn't have and I'm using in this example We're talking about a daily time frame, but you can substitute that for a weekly as well And and actually you absolutely should know what that weekly High low close and midpoint is because you that that kind of confluence will come into play with the daily And it gives you insight to where this thing can go and they're just bigger time frames Same thing with the monthly, you know, these are just factual things. In fact, you know, the monthly time frame is very critical Because that's what most of the fund managers use as a benchmark.  That's there a lot of these traders or managers are benchmarked and so these these time frame structures are really key It's you know, and that's why you need to know Yeah, you need to know what the monthly close is because if you're benchmarked against, you know Bitcoin or bent benchmarked against the S&P And the S&P close closes up x percent for the month, you know, if you didn't beat that then What, you know, you're not getting paid, you know end of the day, you know investors aren't going to come to you because it's just invest in it in a Passive investment, you know, you're just gonna own on the Bitcoin or you're gonna just gonna own the on the asset and or an ETF And that's it, you know, so how do you generate alpha? You know, and that's what and that's their benchmark of and that's what their Their performance is ranked on and if you and so that's why these time frames become really important to the fund managers and and so like and then When you come down to the day And why the interday doesn't work that well I think we need in terms of structure is because the fund managers really don't care They only care about the you know, the bigger structure and they do care about the close Because that's going to affect, you know, their margin rates So, you know Move where as we started this presentation We're talking about moving away from subjective things and into more factual things that you can use as a benchmark And these are the factual things and so how those and then when you see the alignment within the microstructure You know when if you're fading momentum into the previous session high point and again This is just one fact foundation and just more of an example to get you thinking a little differently What that you know, what's the natural targets the midpoint of that range, you know, and so then you have an expectation Okay, my you know, and that's something that you can use to Define your risk parameters and Then we can use the order book to see if we have that alignment as well And so, you know now, you know, we we have this now we're going to talk go into a little bit on context and You know, we we've are able to have a factual foundation of just identifying that, you know, the previous time frame period High low close midpoint Either daily weekly monthly quarterly yearly But you know what and so now how can we get more granularity to that and get more context of you know, is should we be What's the what's more valuable is it selling the high of yesterday or buying the low of yesterday? Which ones but which ones the better out? Well, you know, we can guess And we can have some subjective thing that tells us something or we can look You know, we can really start to get into, you know, what that context is it which what's more likely to occur And which is more valuable, you know, you know buying a break or selling a rally And what are the risks associated with it? And so this is all about market-state So we want to understand the state context and you know, especially if we're you know, we're just using that one time frame period You know, what's the previous sessions? You know, high low close You know, we need you know, we take that into into context. And so, you know, some of this, you know, this is Things you can do on your own absolutely, you know, what's the context here?  This is you know, this the overall price structure is positive So what's more interesting? Is it more interesting to buy this, you know On a daily basis just telling us we've got a negative close, but in the bigger picture. It's actually Into a positive situation versus this one where You know, we have negative structure and so, you know Understanding what that context is and then, you know, we can add things like the VWAP, you know, that's or you know Or them or a moving average, which is, you know on a daily basis, you know that these are good factual things There's not you know, there's not a lot of subjectivity if you're you know, any subjectivity comes into moving averages. What's the what's the Period You know, and I'd like to align those periods with what You know, what my time frame is on the trading and you know, and if you're lining it with the month, you know, so 20 21 days is it, you know trading days for regular 30 days. Those are good time frames 10 days and 7 days, those are good time frames, but they're averages, right? So the VWAP is real time and And you know that that really in a lot of that it just comes down to you know The same that's the midpoint really of the whatever that time frame is so it's again It's just identifying that context, you know, so if we're in a situation where we're below That the VWAP or that average and you know, that's given us insight that it's more, you know The better opportunity especially with negative structure is to self aid Versus situation where we might be Transitioning is To buy faith. So you know understanding that context, you know And so they then it kind of comes down to you know, how do you define that market state? The way we do is we do it with quantitative analytics And so we have you know, and that's what we that's what we provide, you know So absolutely you can have a basic or you can you know work with an expert To provide you with good information You can go out and grow your own tomatoes and garlic and put together your own sauce or you can go with the chef That's been doing it for a while basically and so we've been doing it for a while We've got some good we've got some good stuff and so that's what we're sharing with you today You know, but you know, what is what is market state?  Is it gonna, you know, is it gonna be humid? Are we playing on? You know natural grass are we playing on turf? You know, what kind of cleats do we need to use? You know what, you know, you know it all these things factor into our tactics of how we're gonna play We've got our skill sets. We've got our tactics that we're gonna use but we're gonna need to tweak them a little bit You know, we're gonna, you know, we're gonna lean on certain plays or strategies when it's, you know, wet out and we can't When we might we might not get a good enough traction or it's windy We're not gonna be able to You know pass the ball as well or whatever it is.   You know, what does that really mean in in the bigger context of things and having having a statistical Alignment, it's going to give you more clarity to that And so that's what that's what we offer with our analytics is we offer that statistical baseline that that fact foundation What's that underlying context? And so I mean in absolutely using a the time frame Structure is absolutely a tool that I incorporate along with this quantity this quantitative work and we enhance that by defining the market state and Then we also Define those structure points that to make that state true. So instead of you know, looking at just the price structure we're looking at market structure of defining that okay, well bitcoins in a bull trend and and structurally That bull trend is in force above this price point here, which is in Bitcoin twenty eight thousand eight hundred twenty one and On the high point 29,000 798 is really the trigger point for when that trend is going to resume So at the moment This market has a negative sentiment bias below this price point. It's basically what we're Identifying here and then because we're in that state and structure These are some of the strategy themes that we're looking to do. We're looking to fade momentum At the lower trough of a bull trend, which is Obvious and we're looking to trade a breakout above the trigger point that starts a new trend, which is another obvious thing Again, it's just a fact foundation And then if this market's going to transition and it gives us a false breakout Well, there might be a sell opportunity after the market can't get up here and we get into this corrective mode so we can sell a reversal at this price point and then if it trades to our midpoint and we can execute this sell breakout so What I've done here and let me adjust this chart a little bit This is something that I recommend you do It's more important, you know, if you're thinking in terms of fund manager And they're clued into what the daily clothes was They don't care about this mess here. They really don't it just it becomes simpler because you're just dealing with, you know, the specific levels or strike point strike levels and You know things become a lot clearer, you know, so let me just even remove our analytics for the moment So again, we we've identified The context of the state as positive underlying positive trend, but we've also identified that below the sentiment bias We are Vulnerable to a corrective trade. So underlying context here is positive, but potentially corrective and Here's the start of the trading session And we have been, you know, basically what's a correction corrections either going to go, you know, down or it's going to go sideways So we've been correcting sideways And so at the start of the session, you know, just getting a sense of This simple tool of identifying the time time frame structure You know, the market, you know opens up at the close, which is crypto and You know, maybe we go through the midpoint which is negative and we're trying to make a play for the Previous days low and we bottom out and we can't and then here we go through here's our momentum area So this is your transitional breakout opportunity and what what where would that target? Well, that would target the previous day's high point and it exhausts there And what where does that rejection go back to it goes back to the close in the midpoint Super basic here, but this this really works and you can do the same thing with your weekly now we can come here and You can use the custom notes and So we could you know, we can come in here and This is what 20 293 70 So basically it's coming in at the bottom of this so we already have some alignment here I'll just put it right right below it. So it's just previous days. Hi. I like to use a cyan color aqua here, I mean and And this just gives me some some insight so even with just today's action this little action here And I You know, I like to Look for these situations all the time when you have you know You know, this is going to be a significant price point that the world's looking at, you know this is yesterday's high and You're getting these Look, you know volume dots popping in buying into what you would call resistance This is also turns out to be the What we call our Critical range positive. So it's a you know, you've got some alignment and And what our structure does it defines this to market state This is an interior number. So it's it's it's more rotational. I'm gonna put the critical range up here This is the big Big structure and this is just kind of minor But what's interesting about you know when you combine the work and you combine these facts the quantitative market structure with the actual structure It gives you in you know today was a good insight where yeah This is everyone in the world knows this number But it's actually above that there's actually a structure point. So it's at this point here You know everyone in the world is getting excited that we're making a new move high But we haven't valid we need we're coming into a structure issue that the market needs to validate for so it's It's not so exciting. So people that are getting all you know And these people that came in here and they started to bid this thing up You know, they're they're rallying right into Markets rallying right into structure. And so I like to look for that when you're getting you know excitement into structure point it You know, it's typically those those people will get trapped and then you can sometimes get a good reaction today You know, everyone's just waiting for the Fed. So there's not much going on but but that that's how That's how you can use this stuff So going back to this image Again, this is the you know that kind of the bigger foundation We've got this bigger foundation and we're trading here in the middle So there's really not a lot to do and even if we look at our strategies You know when the market's trading below the directional that's corrective. So there is something going on there but what happened is the market Opened up and produced that negative signal, but then it discounted it here Because if it was going to break out to the downside it should stay below this metric and so that what And I invite everyone to Come on and play around with the playbook sign up for a trial with it But basically every day you're coming in just to identify you know Observing price action within market structure and within and within the time frame structure you know to get clarity of what's what the current condition is and With you know this really simplifies things because these are here's your fact foundation fact is the markets in a bull trend fact is Structures above the market fact is is if we're below the directional we're in what's called a hedge thing Meaning that the market's vulnerable to a trend negative transition either out of the bull trend state into a neutral situation Or into a negative situation So so this is what we call a hedge theme strategy, which is a cell di or breakout this executed off the get-go at you know 8 p.m. Central Standard Time and It didn't fall through So so when a so when the market sets up for a hedge theme and it doesn't work We can kind of cross this off and say this is not happening today We're not going we're not transitioning in a hedge thing So it's either going to be an optimal theme day Or we're going to have what we call a non-event So optimal theme meaning that with the what are the characteristics of a positive state we trend higher So the market so now the market is more likely to You know perform to the expectations of a bull trend We're still concerned because it's against sentiment which is above the market But we could maybe we're going to make a play for sentiment. We do have an economic event coming out But if it is what I'm saying if we break structure here, this is no longer true We can focus on this or go in sideways and so this told us that We're not transitioning lower We know we have our this is kind of a magnet because it's where sentiment is and now we have market Tested that previous day is high we stabilized off, you know around the midpoint in the close And so basically as long as we're above this metric We're going to perform where expectation is we're eventually going to perform to the expectation of the state And we're going to start to move higher because we know that backdrop of this whole foundation is bull trend It's positive We know the market tried to press it to the downside And what else do we know even without any of this stuff? We know that the market it held up is holding above You know, what's the context context is we have higher lows off the previous days low at this moment Obviously anytime this thing could go either direction at any moment. That is what it is What's more likely to occur? Well the market held this previous days low point. We have a higher high What else did it do? Well, it made a higher. I mean higher low. What else did it do? It made a higher high This is what the facts are What else is it? It's above the midpoint. That's positive. What else is it doing? It's above the previous days close Now we take into the quantitative work. What kind of market statement? We're wearing a bull trend. Well, where's this where sentiment? Well, it's it's above the market. Well, okay, so how are we performing around the direction of the midpoint? Well, we're above it. We couldn't hold below it So the fact that we did this we're more likely not going to transition lower. Okay So if we if we're not going to transition lower, where can we go? Well, we could we can make a play for the upside pivot or or sentiment Okay, well, what's going to validate that? Well, it's going to validate that is is these critical range midpoints So if this is true and we are going to rotate higher We need to validate it above this number above 29 406 and that's going to make it true And and if we if we fail here and we break back below here It's going to be a sign of non-event. It's going to be a signal that this markets going nowhere So if we trade back under here with what that tells us is we already broke structure that we weren't going to negatively transition And if and if we can't maintain this positive momentum and perform like a bull trend start performing like a bull trend And we trade back down here. This is going to tell us that we're more likely going sideways and there's nothing to do So, you know Selval, you know, basically we're having one those linear events that markets going to wait till the next trade period to make a decision So here, there's not there's not a lot of activity going on But we do see a little liquidity building up here and that's what we're looking for, you know The market is trading, you know above this metric boundary, which is defined here And so if the market starts to build momentum, we're going to start to see this liquid You know, this liquidity continue to move up. We don't have anything Resting paper sitting up here Until we get back up to these levels so this is 29500 so this is just this is basically coming in right here in the middle and So the expectation on something like this is this is a just a round number This is a round number order that's sitting here this liquidity here and what we know is that doesn't really mean anything. I Guess we could take a look at Let's take a look at something just for fun So we're dealing with the daily structure. So I'm going to flip into I'm going to flip out of the daily And I'm going to look at a higher time frame I'm gonna look at the weekly Again, it's all about just getting that context So then when you get into the moment, you've got better clarity and what I'm here doing now is I'm just taking a look at the Previous week structure Again, this is something that you can do on your own So now we've got the weekly Previous week structure put in there. Let's go back to the smaller time frame And so we have this liquidity here at 29 500 and that's basically here. So this is just above the previous week's low So are more likely This if this if this liquidity may stays here Is we start to rally more likely that's going to be kind of a good acceleration point that we take that out to get It's kind of a surge into this area more likely just based on Where it's it kind of in the middle and it looks like a round number But what's interesting here If we do have an event off off the FOMC Is that the previous week's close is coming in with today's? sentiment bias So that so you've got this interesting confluence here and that's that's what the structure gives you as well You know just same thing from the From here where it's defining the top of the bull trend That's where that kind of the acceleration point to the upside. It's going to act as a natural resistance point And that's what that's identifying and that's up here and that it that comes into alignment with the weekly close So we'll see how see how that plays out But using the order book within structure so you know bottom line is a lot of people I have a tactic skill set of reading momentum in the order book reading order flow You know what you what you're missing is the backdrop base foundation So that's what this is all about giving yourself this fact foundation So that when you're in the moment and you're and you're you're riding the wave that you've got You've got better clarity and it and intuitive. It's going to improve your intuitive function You're gonna you'll be able to make decisions better and clear and and more effective so if you're interested in Taking a look at some of our tools and how we can help you Please visit Dharma capital dot trade. You can email me directly At J s at Dharma capital that trade and also, you know, I do post some stuff on Twitter So if you want to follow me on Twitter, you can do that as well You know, we have any integration with book map So the our structure is coming in, you know, right in the cloud notes column So you can you can have access to that and there's it, you know There's a workflow where you're downloading our data and it and that sets up this integration And you can also use the cloud notes to you know plot these levels as well Right on your chart and I recommend doing that Just remember that you know just to take it to account.  This is your micro foundation, you know, basically the The image we started with This is what it's all about so thank you for your time today and If you're online, you know, good luck this afternoon, you know, this we may have some some interesting volatility and you know, take a look at the plot these you know the time frame structure on your charts and In just observe it or observe price action around it and you'll appreciate You know what you have and and the bottom line is these are these This is a use it as a benchmark You want you need that fact that's your that's your fact foundation to go back to and if you're you know If you're long the market and it's below the the previous period midpoint, you know There's an issue with that and you need it and just being aware of that you can adjust your tactics You can just adjust your risk management and if you're and if you're in alignment with structure Hey, great and you know with the context and what's more likely to occur Don't think about it. Did you let it play out? Let it play out until it's not true I will enjoy your day everyone. Cheers


All right, this is a patron request video for Danny. Danny asked several topics, but I'm gonna take the one on weed. He's like, you know, what's my opinion on weed? You know, cannabis for 20 cents is becoming pretty much mainstream in the United States and it's gonna be legalized. What do I think about it? Well, a couple of things.  So if you're going to smoke it, smoke good, good, good bud.  I don't like anything that's gonna conflict with my fragrance. Cigarettes, cigars, but when I smoke a cigar, I'll end up rocking something that has incense, patchouli, tobacco, honey, something along those lines. Conversely, if you're gonna smoke actual weed, there are fragrances like Black Afghano, Smoke for the Soul, Music Festival, anything that has that hash note in it, anything that has some patchouli in it that can kind of blend with it. That's the number one.  Number two, look man, I don't care who you are.   It doesn't matter if it's legal or not. That's not the point. The point is it's been illegal for so long. This is gonna take several generations, but people do be like, ah, but no different than when somebody smells like cigarette smoke that turns folks off too. Weed smoke is even worse. Now, here's the upside of it. I love the effect. When I was a bartender, when I actually waited tables, I didn't see anybody getting into weed fights. Nobody had weed muscles. The effect is cool. It reduces your anxiety. And depending on what you smoke too, because a lot of people call everything weed, there are different variations that do different things. I'm not gonna go into all that. I'll leave it to my true smokers, but if you want something that's gonna relax you, knock the anxiety off, settle your stomach, those kind of things, can't beat it. And if you are going to smoke, I say vape. Vape, because you want the impact. You don't need to be smoking, walking around with that little roach burning your fingers, get you the best quality weed you can and vape it. Because you get all the good stuff and none of the bad funky smells or anything else like that.  But at the end of the day, understand something gentlemen, you're still intaking intoxicants.  You're gonna have some risks, know who you're dealing with, know who you're around. Sometimes it may be cool, sometimes it may be less cool. I say treat it just like you treat smoking cigarettes or cigars, air on the side of caution. It is far, even though it's becoming more and more acceptable, it's still gonna have a stigma.  Go back and look in the 1920s, read for madness. You know, it's not gonna just change just because it's made legal. And like I said, even if it did, man, it's still funky. So do me a favor, hit me in the, let us know what you think over here on the Patreon section. You like about behind the scenes, man? Yeah, I'm trying some things over here to get you guys more Patreon content. So Danny, there you go. Hope that answers your questions. Guys, if you have a video you'd like me to make, do me a favor, put it down in the comment section. I just might make it for you later.


The wedding. This is a LibraVox recording. All LibraVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information or to volunteer, please visit LibraVox.org. This reading by Lucy Burgoyne. The Wedding by Jenny Betts Hartzwick Well, it's over. It's all over. Being the last to leave, I know that.  So I just ran in to tell you about it while it's on top of my mind. It's a never-lasting shame you had to miss it.  I shouldn't wonder. I know there's loads left, for I happened to slip out to the kitchen for a drink of water. I was that dry after all those salty nuts, and I didn't want to trouble them. And I saw just heaps of things standing round. Most likely you'll get a good, large plate of cake, not just a pinch and little mite, over peace in a box.  How did I get two of them? Why? It just happened that way. You see, when I was leaving, I missed my sunshade and I laid my box down on the hat rack stand while I went upstairs to look for it. I went through all the rooms, and just when I'd about given it up, why, there it was, right in my hand, all the time. Wasn't it foolish? And when I came downstairs, I found I'd clean forgot where I'd laid the box of cake. I hunted everywhere, and when I'd just had to tell the man how twas, so he handed me another one. And I was just walking out the front door, when, would you believe it, if there wasn't the other one, just as innocent, on the hat rack stand where I had laid it. So now I have three of them, counting John's. I just can't seem to realise that Eleanor Jameson is married at last. Can you? She took her time, if ever anybody did. They do say she was real taken with that young college professor, with the full beard and spectacles, that visited there last summer. And then to think that, after all, she went and married a man, with the smooth face. He wears glasses though, that's one point in common. Eleanor was going off a good deal lately, don't you think so? You hadn't noticed it, but then you never was any great hand at noticing. I've noticed you weren't. Why? The other day, when I was there offering to help him, get ready for the wedding, I noticed that she looked real worn. And there was two or three little fine lines in her eye corners, not real wrinkles, of course, but we all know that lines is a forerunner. Her hair is beginning to turn too. I noticed that coming out of church last Sunday. I daresay her knowing this made her less particular than she'd once had been. And after all, marrying any husband is a good deal, like buying a new black silk dress pattern, an awful risk. You may look at it on both sides and hold it up to the light, and pull it to see if it'll fray and try if it'll spot. But you can't be sure what it'll do till after you've worn it as well. There's one advantage to the dress pattern though. You can make him take it back if you mistrust it, won't wear. If you haven't cut into it, that is, that when you've got a husband, why? You've got him to have and to hold, for better and worse, and good and all. Yes, I'm coming to the wedding, I declare. When I think how careless Eleanor is about little things, I can't help mistrusting what kind of a housekeeper she'll turn out. Why? When John's and my invitation came, it was only printed to the church. There wasn't any reception card among it. Now, I've supplied Eleanor's folks with butter and eggs and spring chickens for 30 years, and I'd just have gone anyway, for I knew it was a mistake. But John held out that it wasn't, and they didn't mean to have us to the house part. So, to settle it, I went right over and told him. I told Eleanor she mustn't feel put out about it. We was all mortal, and if it hadn't been for satisfying John, I'd never have let her know how careless she'd been. Of course, I'd made allowance. A wedding is upsetting to the intellect. And so, it was all right. I had a real good view of the ceremony, but it wasn't their fault that I had. It just happened that way. When John and me got there, I asked the young man at the door. He was a yasha and a stranger to me, to give us a front seat.  It seemed real impolite to invite folks to a wedding and then take the best seats themselves. Well, just then I happened to feel my shoe lacing getting loose, and I stepped to one side to fix it. And when I got up from stooping and my gloves on and buttoned, I had to take him off to tie my shoe and straighten John to crevette the hem. Why? There was the families on both sides just going in. Of course, we had to follow right along behind them. And when we came up to the ribbons, would you believe it? The big bow just untied itself, or seemed to. I heard afterward it was done by somebody pulling an invisible wire, and we all walked through and took seats. I made John go into the pew ahead of me so as I could get out without disturbing anybody if I should have a headache or feel faint. When John found we were sitting with the family. He was right close up against Eleanor's mother. He was forgetting up and moving back, but I just whispered to him, John Appleby, do sit still. I hear the bridal party coming. Of course, I didn't just hear them, but I was sure they'd be along in a minute, and I knew it wouldn't do to move our seats anyway, as if we weren't satisfied with them. The church was decorated beautiful. Eleanor's folks must have cleaned out their greenhouse to put into it. Besides tons of greens from the city. Pretty near the whole of Wrenville was there, and I must say the church was a credit to the Wrenville dressmakers. I could pick out all their different fits without any trouble. There was Arabella Satellies. She shapes her backs like the top of a coffin, or sometimes they remind me more of a kite. And Selling Anne Hodds, she makes them square, and old Mrs. Tucker's. You can always tell hers by the way the armholes draw. She makes the ministers' wives. But they'd every one of them done their level best and was proud of them. Well, when the organ, it had been playing low and soft all the time, changed off into the wedding march and the bridesmaids, eight of them marched up the aisle behind the eight yushas. I tell you, Miss Halliday, it was a sight. They was all in pink gauzy stuff. I happened to feel one of them as she went by, but I couldn't tell what was made of. It seemed dreadful flimsy, and big flat hats all made of roses on their heads, and carrying bunches of perflonged steam roses, so big that they had to hold them in their arms like young babes. Eleanor came behind them all, walking with her father. He always was a small, built man, and with her long trail and her veil spreading out so, why, I declare, you couldn't hardly see him. I whispered to John that they looked more as if Eleanor was going to give her par away than him her. Eleanor's dress was elegant, only awful plain. It was made in New York at Greenleafs. I know, because when I was upstairs looking for my sunshade, I told you about that, didn't I? I happened to get into Eleanor's room by mistake, and there was the box that came in right on the bed before my eyes. Well, when May was all past, I kept looking round me for the groom and wondering how I had come to miss him, when all at once John nudged me, and there he was, right in front of me, the minister beginning to marry him. And where he had sprung from, I can't tell you this livid minute. Came in from the vestry, did he? Well, now, I never would have thought of that. Well, when they was most married, the most ridiculous thing happened. You see, Eleanor's father, in stepping back after giving her away, had put his foot right down on her trail and never noticed. At the same time for the prayer, Eleanor pulled and pulled.   I suppose, and the minister had to pray over him that way. I could see Eleanor's shoulders shaking under her veil and, of course, it was ridiculous if it hadn't been so solemn. And then they all marched down the aisle with the bride and groom leading the procession.  She looked real handsome. Good gracious, Miss Halliday, don't ever tell me that's six o'clock. And I haven't told a thing about the presence and who was there and Eleanor's clothes and what they had to eat. Why? They didn't even use their own chinaware. They had a coloured caterer from New York and he brought everything. All the dishes and tablecloths and spoons and forks besides the refreshments. I know because just after he came I happened to carry over my eleven best forks. John broke the dozenth trying to pry the cork out of a bottle of raspberry vinegar the year we were married. I never took a fork to pry with and offered to loan them for the wedding but they didn't need them. So I just stayed a minute or two in the butler's pantry and then went home but I saw the caterer unpacking. There, I knew I'd stay too long. There's John coming in the gate after me. I must go this blessed minute. End of the wedding by Jenny Betts Hartzwick.


I'm grateful to Carl for organizing this and for organizing everything he's done in this space. We have been code conspirators for a long time in a wide range of contexts where we think there needs to be some updating and thinking about monopoly restrictions on access to culture and knowledge. Carl has been an ally and created a commons movement for a long time, but one of the obvious low hanging fruit categories has been the law. And a point that Jimmy Boyle has made a number of times is the puzzle that we've actually seen more progress in advancing thinking about the need for flexible access to content in contexts like music and video. And text that we've seen in all the obvious contexts like the law and education and science. And so one thing I'm excited about is that we are beginning to move the ball in the places where this point should be a no brainer. And I think what Carl has been doing has been really critical in advancing that. I just want to build out one small part of what Carl said in his introduction. It's the part that I've been thinking about most recently and I couldn't discipline myself to go back to the things that I haven't been thinking about for a while. So here it is. As people around law schools know we have this whole raft of law and subjects and one of them is law and technology. But I want you to think a little bit about the way we have law because of technology. So there was this country a long time ago, it was called England. It developed this thing called the common law. People who looked like that did it. There were not that many of them at the highest level of the English common law system. And what they were able to do in their relatively small, relatively non-transparent system of law was to build a consistent and coherent body of common law. And then the common law was imported into the United States over Jefferson's outrage, but nonetheless that's what happened. And over the course of the 19th century there were of course many thousands of opinions of the common law that were developed and published. Or not published, just developed. And then a company called West came along and started to publish these opinions. And what people recognized was this assumption of common law of consistent and coherence law was false. In fact it was inconsistent, consistent and incoherent in the law. Because as you looked at law across the many jurisdictions there was no centralizing force that was actually achieving consistency and coherence in the way it existed in England. And what that led to was natural change in our understanding of the law. What could say formalism moved to realism because of technology. We had a radical remaking of the common law because of technology. And I would submit we have Justice Scalia here because of technology. For his views of the law are radically tied to this fact about the inconsistency that was produced by the recognition of the diversity of the common law system. So that's a story of what happened in the late 19th to the early of 20th century. And interesting that 100 years later, the late 20th to the early 21st century, in a certain sense we have the opposite problem. Not too much law, but too little law. We have access to law, access at least through money which if you have money is excellent in primarily services like these two traditional services and my favorite new services, the Stask case service. But the model of this kind of access we can simplify as a kind of stupid word, service. So the idea is we've got these massive databases and standard technologies for figuring out how we get access to law within these databases. And these technologies have been different ways to get people to think about how to string words together. And if you're trained long enough by librarians you can actually do it really well but most of us are not sufficiently trained. So the efficiency of search in this context is poor. Where efficiency means not the quickness with which the machine is able to pull a record and present it to the user. But the ease with which one goes from what you want to see to actually seeing it. If you think of what you want to see in a broader sense than just what is the rule of law for consideration in this jurisdiction. If you think of what you want to see as I have a pattern of facts related to my client. And I'm going to see how that pattern of facts has been dealt with by other courts in other jurisdictions. And the pattern of facts here is the crucial element that has been underserved in the way in which we search and organize the materials. Because of course the idea of the common law was similarly situated cases meaning similar fact patterns would be dealt with in the same way. But of course that level of analysis or understanding was so far beyond the traditional model of what searching and databases could be. Nobody even tried to get that. Instead we just tried to organize doctrine in a way that was cut out by keynote searches and all sorts of things like that. But we organized doctrine to allow the lawyer to do something with the facts. Okay so it's a poor system for doing what we think the law at its core should be doing matching similar cases. But at the same time we have that poor service from technology. We have this other phenomenon where the cost of lawyering is going through the roof. The actual amount of money the lawyers get paid for their work. Not at all fields of course. Certainly not in public related law. But in private related law the cost of lawyering is going up. And these two facts for searching and cost of lawyering going up lead to a hypothesis. I won't claim this is true. I just suggest that we think about it like this. In the actual practice of law the use of rules from sovereigns that gets expressed through courts is an important sense going down. We have this odd dynamic that we're pricing and loyering in the model of Langdell out of the market. Loyering the model of Langdell meaning trying to find public rules that apply to our cases or our clients or our facts. And use them effectively. We can't do that anymore because the cost of doing that in an important sense has become too great. So that we substitute something else. And the something else we substitute looks a lot like what law looked like before we had courts and rules. And you have people sitting down and negotiating out the deal. Like okay it would really be too hard to figure out what the law really would say about our facts. But look we're reasonable. We can figure out what the answer here should be. And so you have silent and you have arbitration. You have agreements that are in some sense in the shadow of the law. But that is profoundly costly to the law itself. Because the whole assumption of the law was that it would produce a public good that other people could use when they tried to resolve the conflicts or decide how they would proceed in advancing whatever their interest was in society. The public good was we could know what the rules would be that we would apply or be subject to as we try to do something. Well to the extent that we should law into this private space, this arbitration space that just exists in the shadow of the law, we lose the value of that public good. And we also lose something at the core of what lawyering was about. So there's a story that my uncle who's a hero and so I wildly overstate his qualifications in all contexts. But my uncle was the person who got me into the law. And he was a litigator in a small firm in Madison. And he was a litigator in the sense that he was in court all the time, litigating all sorts of cases from the smallest contract dispute to very large, complicated, towards cases. And he described to me a litigation he was called into with a very large New York firm. I won't get anybody angry at me, so I patterned to avoid getting people angry at me. But in this one case I won't get anybody angry at me by naming the firm. But this firm had a very complicated litigation matter to pursue. And he was meeting with the very top litigation partners of this firm. And the very top litigation partner of the firm had appeared in court five times in his career. Five times in his career. And it was, of course, who could afford to litigate things anymore. And this is again the point of the way that lawyering has just become priced out of the practice of law. And he asked, is there any litigator in this firm by which he met somebody who had actually litigated before? And no, there wasn't anybody in that firm who would litigate it because nobody litigates anymore. Everybody does everything in a side way. So the sense in this law is are there any lawyers anymore who are producing this public good of the law? Now, you know, what's needed in this space, again, this is something Carl emphasizes. I'm going to compliment that point a little bit more. What's needed is a certain kind of innovation. And the kind of innovation we need is radical new ways to take and process and understand cases. Obviously, other legal material, too, statutes and municipal rules or anything like that. But the part I want to figure out here right now is cases. And what we understand from the theory of innovation is that that sort of innovation is only going to come from outside the traditional institutions of the law. Or it would only come from outside any traditional institution because the innovator's dilemma is the story about how the people who know the most about a field or the people who know least about how to innovate in that field. So what we knew here is radical new ways to understand cases, by which I mean a kind of quote understand, meaning a radical new ways for machines to understand cases. To be able to automatically process and automatically identify the salient features into the side cases. In this sense, due to the law, what Google did to the net. Everybody here, well, except the kids. But everybody here remembers the net before the radical change in search engines that Google was the first big instance of. I remember in like 97, 98 feeling the net was going to be hopeless, like lost. There was no way to do anything using it because there was no effective way to get access to it. Because our conception of how to organize access to it had been set by these traditional yahoo. You can give you a list of everything you should look at or I'll sell you top building for your advertising work or something like that. But the actual innovation of a new way to think about accessing the material that Google gave us radically changed and increased the value of the net. And of course other people do it today too, yahoo has an amazing lab for thinking about new ways to think about a search in this context. But the point is, they began to think about making this material accessible in a way that it hadn't been accessible before. Now, the question I would ask is what are the conditions under which that kind of innovation is possible? What do we need to guarantee for that innovation to happen? Now we need to recognize innovation is risk and the return, the percentage return from innovation is tiny. Tiny on that screen right now. And then more risk in the context of innovation field, Gator's Parabas, is less innovation, less risk is more innovation. So the point that is obvious I should think about, it's taken a long time for our society to get here, is that one risk that we can eliminate is resource risk. Meaning the risk that the underlying resource that you depend upon in some sense will turn against you or be priced out of your accessibility. Priced through licenses and other initiatives. So to use a basic resource, if you take a basic resource of information, the simplest way to increase innovation around that resource is to eliminate what I call here the resource risk. There's been a lot of people who are studying this. My favorite analysis of this comes from this wonderful paper by Peter Weiss, Borders and Cyberspace, a little bit misleading title. But what it's basically talking about is the evidence we've got and the model we've got for understanding the evidence, about why open access to underlying government information resources turns out to be radically more productive for the economy than the cost recovery model that is the standard model for access to data in Europe and in big parts of law in the United States. And so I just want to share some of the conclusions of this great report. So first, as I say, the economists are either benefits to the American treasure from adopting this open access but accrue from corporate and individual taxes, from the secondary publishing and services activities stimulated by the access policies far exceed any revenues that might be generated through cost recovery processes. So the point is if you think beyond the first step where in America we give the data away for free in Europe they charge the access to data and think about the effect on the economy from giving away the data for free and the net effect on the economy is greater than the amount of money you're going to get from just paying for the cost recovery for that data. Cost recovery policies often mean that the budgetary constraints prevent some government agencies from acquiring information that has already been created or collected by another part of the government resulting in agencies either doing without or using inferior alternatives. The point that you didn't mention but a point that you've mentioned many times before is the number of state courts that don't even have access to their own opinion because their state budgets have been cut. Such that they can't afford the excess of the Westlaw searches of their own opinions. So you have government agencies that can't get access to government data because we've made government data accessible in a way that doesn't live up to these open access standards. No one supplier, public or private, can design all information products required to meet the needs of all users in a modern information-based economy. Private sector and media areas are increasingly important players in developing information economy. That's my point about the innovation dilemma, innovator's dilemma, which is what we need to do is to make sure that lots of people who are outsiders, radicals, people who don't think like the dominant entities have the right to innovate on top of the data. And that is only assured if the basic conditions that Carl described, of a bulk access permission-free, certified, signed source is available for everyone to build upon. And a recognition that efforts to build transnational data, such as meteorological or environmental, statistical or cardiographic, are hampered by national agencies bent on preserving intellectual property and pursue local cost recovery projects. This study did an estimate of the economic value produced by the data made available in either a cost recovery or an open access model. So this is in euros, the investment value in the EU was 9.5 billion, the economic value from that was 65 billion, the United States 19 billion, economic value 750 billion. What are the multiples here? In the EU, the data produced a 7.16 multiple, in the US it was a 39.5 multiple. This is real economic value produced by adopting a model of access, which is free access at the base and innovation on top. And this, of course, now being copied in Europe too, the Dutch Ministry did this fantastic study on the effect of access to government data here and saying prosperity effects would maximize when data is sold at marginal cost. Marginal cost is defined as all costs related to dissemination of public sector information, just shipping, promotional costs, personal information, technology costs. That's the most you should be charging to get access to something, an enormous additional economic activity can be expected by extrapolating the study's results to all public sector information. And that's the project at law.gov. Now, my point is we need these kinds of insights to be applied in this context. Well, again, in my view, it should have been the easiest of all contexts for this kind of open access insight to apply. So what exists explains the resistance here. Well, one part of it is a kind of common story, or we could say a common story. There's a certain kind of mistake that's made, a mistake of seeing the special case for the general case. So the special case here is that innovation and creativity sometimes requires a monopoly, right? We call it a copyright. So business is a creativity on the model of these guys or this woman. That's the kind of creativity that typically requires for it to be maximized in some important sense within the society, something like this proprietary right. But that special case is not the general case. And in the general case, we often have innovation and creativity without monopoly. So science, education, and also the law, which increasingly obviously produces lots of innovation with that kind of exclusive right. And so the common lesson here, common lesson that we've talked about at Harvard for a long time, the exclusive right here, might help the monopolists or the people who get the benefit of the exclusive right. They can point to very high profit rates, which lead to very high stock values, which people mistake for general economic benefit to society, but it's not. It's general benefit to a particular company. That's what that produces. It helps the monopolist, but it hurts innovation and hurts the spread of that knowledge. And of course, it's not just an error. It's not just these people have done their sums incorrectly or just are mistaken about the fact. There's also a very fundamental interest here. In some sense, there's all the money in the world on the side of protecting exclusive access to these resources. Because it's a very safe business to be in the business of selling municipal codes. People have got to buy them. There's no risk in that business. If you can get that monopoly right, it's extremely valuable to you and as Judge Posner taught us more than 35 years ago, you're willing to spend up to $1 less than the value of that right to protect that monopoly right. So it's not just that people like Carl can go around and just state these obvious truths and the world is going to collapse around these obvious truths. It's going to take a big fight because it's not just a fight against mistakes. It's a fight against very significant economic interests. So all the money in the world is against this obvious. I think the point that we need to get support for and having librarians behind this is critical. Is that we've had a world where the law is effectively been played in the monopoly way for too long, maybe 150 years, depending on how you count it. And it's time, in my view, that we try something new, something new, something new. Here is this free access to this material project which Carl started. So that's the points I'm happy to make. I did it more quickly than you wanted me to. It's meant to be a general discussion as far as this workshop. And that's one reason Larry did 15 minutes and we have 15 minutes to bombard him with questions. So any? Another, I think, yes. I think another reason that it's hard, I thought you were going to say it because you came right up to it and I'm sort of curious to see why and what to do about it, is that there's a tragedy at the Commons, where even, sort of aside from interest calculations, it's a locally reasonable decision for the federal courts to keep the cost in pace here. So even if the 120 million turns into a billion dollars to the Treasury, that's not destroying money that the federal court system will get back. So it actually is an optimal decision for them. And, of course, everyone's making these locally optimal decisions and that's the tragedy of the Commons, that globally that's no longer the optimal decision. That seems an easier problem to solve than fighting lapses, which I say, kind of, you know, they're a client of ours and you know how powerful and wealthy they are. But that seems an easier thing to solve looking locally and trying to figure out, you know, it's the same with the patent offices. There's some way that we can make a bargain with them that they get an equivalent share of the general prosperity so that they're not losing by making that thing. Do you have any thoughts on how to do that? I completely agree with the description of the dynamic. Although I wouldn't say it follows from that that it's an easier problem, because, of course, the powerful interest on the other side is going to exploit this fact to try to drive local constituencies to fight hard to keep their right to collect their inefficient tax. Now, you know, we've seen these inefficient taxes throughout history as people have stopped to develop into Europe until they figured out that the Danube should not be a series of local taxes which would just be a river where people could move goods. And that's going to happen here too and it requires some kind of leadership at a higher point, but I was going to resist trying to talk about the corruption issues, but let's just, you know, frank about it until we can get policy makers sufficiently independent from those sorts of wealthy interests. It's not wealth, but it's just special interests here. They're not going to be able to recognize that fact. I mean, we see this repeatedly in lots of contexts. For example, you know, if you take some of these, some of these very large stores like Walmart or, I don't remember, this kind of fishing store, the Bass store, something like that, which come into local regions and they say, okay, we'll build a store here, but only if you eliminate our property tax. And if you don't, we're going to do it in the next county over, so you're going to lose all the benefit from that. Now, as any economist would tell you, this is completely insane for people to be doing this because what they're doing is they're giving up the tax base. They're competing with people who are paying tax, so those small businesses are driven out of business. And if you look at the actual returns from these large businesses, if they had to pay tax, they would not be profitable. They only are profitable because they're not paying taxes like the rest of us, right? So here's an obvious public good, and I collect an action column here. These local communities ought to get together and just ban this kind of activity and enforce everything. But there too, we can't get that kind of agreement because these businesses leverage this local point against the more general. So I agree with you. I just don't think it necessarily points us to the easiest path, but I think that there's a compelling argument to be made to these people. I think that one way is to wait for the federal judiciary to become fully enlightened and to join our side in this fight against Lex's next. But on the theory that that's hard, I think there ought to be some bargain we can cut with now. There ought to be some way we can say, look, here is the way that you will not be especially harmed.  You can increase your, you can set your own fees and keep the money if, right? There's always these negotiations with Patent Office who controls the revenue stream. It just seems to me that if we can come up with some way to enlist Pacer on our side of the debate, that we're in much better position to make the argument against the private interests. And that we won't be able to do that if we just wait for them to become enlightened and serve the public interests. I think that's going to happen. So, I agree we should be waited. And I don't think anything Carl's been doing has been about waiting. And I agree that we could structure it like that. Then we could grease the wheels towards the right answer. I guess I'd just come back to my pessimism about that fiscal deal being struck. Because there's so many places where it still goes the other way. And the other one that's very familiar to people around this place is Spectrum, right? Where the actual economic benefit from auction in Spectrum is probably negative, right? Because the value you get from auction, the revenue you get is less than the amount of economic activity that you drive out because you've set it off as an exclusive property right as opposed to something available in the Commons. But you can't, you couldn't say to Congress they should give up the millions of dollars that they're getting in that revenue because of their total gain to society. They just don't hear that kind of reasoning. So we need to get them to see that reasoning, especially here. But I think it's going to be a hard fight. Let me make two brief points on that. So, on the question of the benefits going back into the courts as opposed to generally the society. So the actual revenue stream last year was about 80 million dollars on Pacer. By the way, these numbers come from Steve Schultz who came out of Harvard and is now at Princeton. It turns out the executive branch spends 20 or 30 million dollars a year accessing the Pacer system. The Justice Department spends four million dollars a year. And so there is a possible compromise there in which the executive branch takes some of this money and moves it over and we recognize that our law schools aren't getting access. And so there's a potential for some of that to happen. The second point is, believe it or not, Lexus Nexus and Fast Case and quite a few of the other vendors have been very strong participants in law.gov. Now, I'm not saying Lexus Nexus has endorsed all these concepts. But their CEO was at the Center for American Progress two days ago and was talking about how he believes access to raw materials is one of his biggest costs. That he spends a tremendous amount of time negotiating cross licensing arrangements, getting poorly formatted documents and reformatting them. And so to him, he sees a great potential for more efficiency and cost of materials and just as importantly a more level playground and he actually believes he adds more value than his competitors, as does Fast Case. Their CEO was there as well. And so they actually see some potential benefits in this kind of a movement. I still think it's going to take national leadership and a movement of groundswell from librarians and students and law professors and deans to make this happen. Is your speech going to be copyrighted or can we have copies of that after you? No, I don't think I'd do a CC zero. Okay. And I do have a question for around Fast Case and it's a small question. But Fast Case brings up the Code of Mass Regulations into Math 12 or the Library's Mountain that pays for it. And I haven't written Fast Case to send me its Honor Public website so people can't find it to the public. But there's something that irks me now about Fast Case using our material that we created in the public and you're right. They won't charge me because I'm here in the state so the amount of money we have to pay to buy it back which I'm not going to do. So should I be irked? I'm irked. I'm stay irked, but should I be writing Fast Case? So you're upset because they're taking what you've made available for free in their selling? And yet when there was another publication internally that another company wanted to put under there, I was told by my lawyers not to give it to them because they're going to make money on it and it was created in the public domain. And I thought, all right, well, I'm just going to do it like that. So this is a hard argument to make but let me try to make it the wrong way. You should not be irked. You should celebrate that. You should be happy about it. The more people who figure out ways to take the material you're putting in the public domain for free and make it profitable to make it out there, it spreads the information and it's their objective to spread the information. And if you don't allow them to be able to make money off it, we're not going to have enough innovation around it. So one of the most interesting points in the history of free software, the free software, the new Linux operating system, was that when current entities decided they wanted to come in and start to make money off of this, the founders of the free software movement celebrated that idea. They didn't want the money. They didn't try to get them. It's not like where just free software still lives in poverty. The thing is, he knew that until you had that kind of commercial support, you wouldn't spread and make free software succeed. And I think that's the same way you should think about this. The more people who use and make money from your data, the more it shows how valuable your data is, even if you're not getting that kind of money. But I take it you went in the business you went into not because you wanted to make a lot of money, but because you wanted to spread knowledge. In fairness to them, it says, and that's wild front libraries, wide across the country. We've had other people take it and take off the heading and then use just the data. And when you click through it, it clicks to our stuff, but then something else goes wrong. Yeah. I mean, Carl mentioned this project. We were part of CC0 and Carl's, some of Carl's work was the first stuff released under this Creative Commons Zero protocol, which is basically a way to say we wave all rights that we could wave in this context. But one thing we've been talking about in this context is how to add back norms. So I don't want to sue you if you do something with my public domain data that I don't like. But I do think it's appropriate to say, look, the decent person says you got this from the following place, or here's the original source, or here are the people who you should thank for this type of data. And I think that's a totally appropriate layer of normative restriction that should be put on the spread of this stuff. But I don't think there should be any legal restriction. Thank you for this. So this may be a naive question, so apologies if I'm trying. But I'm wondering if you all, and I mean everybody in the room here, actually other business models in the situation, I think they sort of think of medical information as a somewhat similar type of world where you have doctors who practice medicine and you don't want to run into the unauthorized practice of medicine and you don't want to run into the unauthorized practice of law, there's reasons around why the forces would be to contain that type of information. And yet, as a consumer, I can go and find a lot of information about medicine. So I just throw that out as an interesting example and question mark whether or not some of the services that have been developed, which big money, might apply to this same kind of giving people access to information about the law. Now I'm thinking more about the end user consumer more than necessarily employers or law firms, but just throw that out there for any thoughts I have. I completely agree with the methodology. We've got to be looking across fields to see who does it well and who delivers this well. I'm skeptical that we would come to the conclusion that medicine does a problem. Just an example, I didn't need to... Yeah, but other context I think we should be looking exactly that way to see how they do it with us. Yes, sir. More of a statement than a question, but I see the problem is twofold in the sense of dissemination of the information, so providing intelligent navigation capabilities to find the right profile-specific information. But I see a fundamental problem with the way the content is created as well. When you drill down to specific state legislatures, you'll find that they're extremely prior and proprietary in the way they create content. They do it because they've always done it that way. You could go down even further into the Senate and the House and they're very different, so you have completely different methodologies and the process and so forth. And not to insult anyone in the room, but you have a career to public service folks that are driving this, that are really in control of the situation and are not motivated to change. So how do you motivate individual state governments and individual municipalities to not only adopt these intelligent navigation tools but to standardize the way content is created? So I think you're the expert in this. So there's really a couple aspects to what I felt. There's the obvious things like setting walls on dissemination and copyright restrictions. But there's also a need as you point out for standardizations. So for example, Paul Verkile was the new chairman of the administrative conference of the United States. Over 100 regulators and folks that do administrative law. The National Center for the State Courts, the administrative office of the courts. One of our strongest recommendations is that they need to come up with standards. What is adequate metadata? What is proper document structure? The authentication is an example of a standard. And that's one of the things that I think are missing right now. Now, you know, that said, if all they gave us is word perfect files via an email gateway, that would be better than the current system. But it's not going to bring us to the point where we truly have an efficient and productive system. And that's going to require standards and it's going to require bringing the level of the production of data up. The Office of the Federal Register and the Government Printing Office have been doing a wonderful job on the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. It's in well-formatted XML. It's authenticated. It's available in bulk. And we've been pointing to that as an example that government can, in fact, do it properly when they want. That's a very good point, standardization. To your point, we're not a medical. There's a HL7 standard. Our content is created. There were standards in aerospace and the Department of Defense has been using standards for many, many years to address this problem. So it's a very good point. There has to be a grassroots effort in adopting some common standards in terms of the way content is created. And it's got to be them doing it. Because, as I said, there's tens of thousands of courts out there and they can all decide what they want to do and there's a good reason for that. And so the important thing is not for us to be saying they need to do it better. The important thing is for the Judicial Conference and the Association of Supreme Court justices and the states to decide what they want to do it better. And so a lot of what we need to do here is not beating up the judges and the other officials. It's convincing them that there's a real problem that they need to adopt and internalize. And that's been a lot of the goal of creating this big tent and trying to bring it up to them as a problem that they can recognize and then begin to deal with. So I have to go catch a plane and I apologize.


Globally, 33% of high-quality protein and 17% of calories in our diets come from livestock, which are an important source of key micronutrients. Even adding a small amount of food from animal sources to the diets of children in developing countries can have a meaningful impact on their health and development. But climate change is impacting the health of livestock and affecting the livelihoods of millions of small-scale livestock farmers around the world. In Ethiopia, rainfall has become so unpredictable that farmers are struggling to keep their feed crops and cattle healthy. Changing weather patterns have also led to changes in the distribution of mosquitoes, flies and ticks, causing disease outbreaks in new animal populations. Climate change has also led to more locust plagues, which destroy fields and leave even less for cattle to eat.  Ethiopian small holders and their livestock are not the only ones battling the effects of climate change. In Central America's dry corridor from Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras to El Salvador and Guatemala, increasingly frequent and adverse climate impacts are forcing farmers to abandon their animals and their land. At the same time, farmers in Madagascar are dealing with the worst drought in 40 years, and millions of pastoralists and their livestock in Pakistan and South Sudan have been displaced by floods. Over their lifespan, stressed and unhealthy livestock produce less milk, but continue to contribute towards greenhouse gas emissions. They are also more vulnerable to disease that could ultimately spread to humans. How can we help farmers take action to reduce the impacts of climate change on their animals and protect their livelihoods? By addressing climate-related threats to animal health, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations supports farmers in building more sustainable and resilient agri-food systems. This is done through good production practices, vaccinations, biosecurity, and securing feed for their animals. Additionally, FAO has helped implement several projects to address climate-related threats to animal health. This includes the treatment of millions of hectares of locust-infested land across eastern Africa and southwest Asia, preventing over 4.5 million tonnes of crop losses and feed for livestock, helping to ensure animal health and increase food security for millions of people. FAO also developed an early warning and risk management tool to help governments respond quickly to outbreaks of climate-related, insect-borne diseases, such as Rift Valley Fever, which kills cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats and camels. There are also global and regional strategies in place to control and eliminate priority animal diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, African Swine Fever, and Pest Apeti Rumanan, PPR. When it comes to agricultural policy, FAO's one-health approach focuses on transforming agri-food systems to protect the health of people, animals and the environment for more sustainable food and feed production. FAO also promotes animal health innovations to help manage the threat of emerging diseases brought about by climate change. By working to reduce climate risks, we can help smallholder farmers raise healthy livestock, sell more products, and enjoy a more nutritious and diverse diet for many years to come.