Morning, everyone. Sorry to have a little mic battery issue. That should be good, though. Anybody have any pressing questions? All right, I'm super close.  I guess it's actually spring break? I actually don't know. Is it after your classes are done? Okay, so what we're trying to learn is, okay, we want to try to understand pointer semantics, right? We want to understand what exactly are these pointer operations and what do they do, right? So we looked at both pointer dereference and the address of operator, and we saw how we can use circle box diagrams, which are really simple to show and illustrate how these semantics work. So let's look at a more complicated example. Can everybody read that? So I've got an int star star called x, I have an int star called y, I have an int called z, and then I'm going to call malloc size of an int pointer and assign that to x. I'm going to assign y, the return value of malloc of size of an int. I'm going to set x equal the address of y, y equal the address of z, y equals star x. Okay, so we're going to step through this line by line and try to see what actually happens. Before we actually show what happens, we should talk about it so that we can predict and know exactly what it should be. So this first line, so what's going to happen in the box circle diagrams after this line is executed? So if you're doing this, right, you're going through it, you say, okay, I want to use box circle diagrams to understand what's going on here, what do I do? So let's have a location x at that point in time. What x? A location that x is assigned to or maps to. I can't remember the exact language. Bound to, yeah, you could find the west. Bound, okay. So the x bound to some location, so the important point is it's some location, right, and we don't know the value that's inside that location that's bound to x, right. At this point we have no idea what's in there. Okay, and then this line, same thing with y, we just have a new name and a new location. Here's z, same thing, right. So important point here, so what's the difference between in the box circle diagrams all three of these values, these names x, y, and z? The types, yeah, but in the diagram what's the difference? Nothing, right. This is one of those fundamental concepts that you have to somehow inject into your brain or jack into the matrix and learn it or struggle with it for a while until you realize. Pointers, no dip, double pointers in star stars, right. No different than any other data type. It's just what's inside them can have a different meaning depending on if you do array act, if you do a dereference operator. So even if it's a non-primitive type. Even if it is, say that again? A non-primitive type. Yeah, so you mean for like if this was a struct? Yeah. Struct, foo, z? Yeah. Yeah, so it would just mean that what's inside here, because here we're abstracting away the exact number of bytes that's inside each of these values, so technically there would probably be more bytes, but we don't really have to worry about that. But the value where that struct is going to live is in a location that's associated with that name. So when we get to this line, right? So what's malloc? What does malloc do? Is that like kind of like a high level? Yes. So it returns the address of what? And then the box circle diagrams. The address of what box? So this box. This box. This box. Okay, so this box. It will be the box. We'll put someone else's answer. A new box. Yeah. So abstractly, right, in the circle box thing, we just need to know that malloc is going to create a new box, right? And we know that the size of whatever can be inside this new box is what's given at the parameter, right? That parameter is exactly how many number of bytes is going to be inside this circle. But for our purposes, we don't care about that when we're just talking about here with box circle diagrams about who points to what and how do we access things. So we'll say that this has an address of 4. X4. And we're writing kind of hex like this, so it's pretty clear that that's an address. So malloc does this, right? Creates this brand new location for us at some memory location. And then it returns that memory location, right? With r value of 4. And then what happens at, what is this whole assignment statement going to do? X now points, or X is now bound to that new location. X is bound to the new location? How the diagram changes, that was the case. So this would be... Let's see if I can do this with this terrible thing. This is going to fail. We'll try this, right? This would mean that this name X is now bound to this location. Points to it. The value inside of X now has that memory location. Yeah, so the value... So this is the way to bring it down. This is why we kind of built it up into little steps, right? So we know the exact semantics between L value equals r value. So here on the left is X and L value and r value. L value. There's a location here associated with X. And so malloc returns an r value, which is 4. The address of this new memory location. And so then if we have L value is equal to some r value 4, what do we do? Yeah, just take, exactly, exactly. That's a good semantics. So take the 4, store it in the location associated with the name X. Right? And so that's going to be 4. So then then... So where does now... Does anybody have to erase this red line? I wonder if I can just move it a little bit. Go away. Success. Restart. Fixes everything. So now that this 4 is inside the value associated with X, if I were to do star X, where does that point to now? 4. So it points to here? The value inside of there. The value inside of here? Yes. So star X is going to point to the circle? Yes. What is the dereference operator return? Return of value or location? A location. So what's it going to point to? Location that X is associated with. So whatever it is. The location that star X is going to point like here? Yeah. The box at 4. Yes. The box at 4. Right? So specifically, star X is going to point to the box. Right? And this is Y. So the dereference operator is a location. Right? So that's exactly why we can use this on the left-hand side of an equation and to be able to write to it. We can access the value in here. If we use star X on the right-hand side of an equation, it's going to get the value associated with the location star X. And so it's going to be able to get that value out of there. But we can use it on the left-hand side because it specifically points to the box. So it looks up 4 and it says, okay, give me the location associated with the memory address 4. Okay.  But let's try. It's awesome when people put batteries in a computer marked new that are actually old. I haven't yet got to the case from lugging around batteries in my bag, but I'm sure I'll get there at some point. I have markers in there too, just in case. Ready to teach at a moment's notice. Okay. So is that everything that's done? Now, in the semantics here? Yeah. We've taken that value, we've assigned it there. So remember, this star X doesn't actually, we haven't used that in the program yet, but you can see that this is where star X points to. And because this is semantics and because it matters a lot, you have to be precisely correct in these things. So on a midterm or something, if we're like, okay, draw the circle box diagrams at this point in the program and label like star X. If you draw star X going to the circle, star X points to the location because it's an L value. Okay. So then what's going to happen here on this Y? New memories? So Malik's going to create a new memory, so how am I going to draw that? New box. Yes, so we get a new box. It's going to be some memory address. We'll call it location eight. We'll consider that it's four bytes away, but really these could be completely abstracted. They could be whatever. It doesn't really matter except that it's different from those other addresses. And then what's going to happen after Malik creates this value? Associated with Y. Yes, so eight is going to be copied into the location associated with Y and now where does star Y point to? At the memory address eight. These are all pointers R. And then are we done? With this line? Yes, it's a 50-50 question as well. Yes. Okay. Now what's this line going to do? Change the value inside of X. Change the value inside the location associated with X? Yeah. With to what? To Y's address. To Y's address. Yeah, so we actually haven't given, we'll call them, we'll call them addresses, the address of X, the address of Y, the address of Z. It doesn't matter how you do this, right? On a midterm or something, we'll usually tell you, assume X is at some memory address, alpha or address of X is usually actually a super easy way to do it. So now that we've given them these names, then what's going to happen? What are we going to do? So what is that address of Y return? A, D, Y. Yeah, remember address of operator returns an R value. So it takes in a box, right? It takes in a location, and it gives you the address, which is an R value associated with that location. So it's going to return the address of Y, and then that's just some value. So where's it going to put that value? Circle in X. Yeah, in the circle in X. So now where does star X point to? That also has the name Y, right? So now it's going to point here. So what happened? What happened to the location of the memory associated at four? Did we touch that or change that? It's leaking. It's leaking. Why is it leaking? Because we didn't refer you. Right, so a key problem, well, we're going to get into it in a second, but this kind of is forward shadowing, a foreshadowing, right? So is there any way we can reference this location four now? No. Maybe. We can iterate through overall possible memory locations, right? But, you know, semantically from here, there's no way. So in our program, right, we can only access X, Y, and Z, the names X, Y, and Z, right? And then from there, we can access their dereferences, right? So we can dereference any of those pointers. So we can go to anything they point to. We can go to anything those things point to. But how do we get from X, Y, and Z to star four? Sorry, star. The location at the memory address four? No, we can't. Yeah. So this is basically a memory leak. The problem is, or it's, yeah, it's a, trying to remember the exact term we used. We'll see in a second. But it's essentially a memory leak. So we have created some memory, right, that can no longer be accessed by our program. So how do we access this O8, OX8? So we can use Y, and then we can do Y star, right? And so that'll get us there. Or star, star, X, yeah. So we can go X, and then star, star, X to get here. So that's fine. But four we can never reach. But let's continue executing. We'll kind of set that aside by now. Okay, we get to this line. Y is equal to the address of Z. So what's going to happen here? Yeah. So what's the address of Z? ADZ. ADZ. And so that's an L value and an R value. R. R value. Yeah. So it's an address. It's just some value. And so we're going to copy that value where? Circle of Y. The circle and the location associated with Y. So we take that. We're going to erase that. And so what's going to happen to our, to star Y? Wins to Z. It's going to point to the location associated with Z. Yeah, right? So star Y is now going to point to the box Z. So what's going to happen here? The value of ADZ is going to equal the, or is going to be changed to the value of ADZ. Yes. Okay. So let's bring it down. So star X, what's that going to return an L value or an R value? R value. L. L. Always L. Stars. De-references. Always L. Click to click to shop. Always L, right? That's why it points to this whole box. Right? So star X is going to return this box. And so we have an L value, right? Y has a location associated with it. And on the right hand side of that assignment operator, we also have an L value, right? A location. So take the value inside star Y, which is ADZ. Copy it into the look, value of the location associated with Y, which is this box. And so we copy ADZ and put it back into ADZ. Questions on what happened here? So this box is star X. What's the value inside the box of star X? ADZ. Right? Because star X means take X, take the value inside of X, look up that, find me a box with the address of ADY. So which is the box here with the address of ADY? Not Y. Why's the name? The location associated with Y. Right? So it's this box. So star X is going to refer to this location. So we have basically the location associated with Y. Assign that whatever is in the location associated with star X. So star X, we get the value in that location, which is what's the value of the location star X? ADZ. ADZ? We take ADZ, where are we copying it? Location associated with Y. Yes. Into the location associated with Y? So this is the location associated with Y? And the value? So we copy ADZ into there? In effect, nothing changes. But yeah, we have to know. I mean, to know that nothing actually changes, right? We have to know that X is the address of Y, or X has the address of Y. So that when we dereference X, we're talking about that same location. And this is why pointers make analyzing C code very difficult, because there can be multiple ways you can reference something. So if I want to ask the question in my analysis, hey, is it ever the case that this value could be zero? Well, you know, if the value inside Y could ever be zero. Well, it could be zero if you set Y equal to zero, which is easy to tell. But is there any possible way that all pointers that point to Y, did they ever change their value to zero? So it becomes very difficult. Then let's add on to this program, make it a little more complicated. Let's hit Z equal to 10. So what's this going to do? 10 and the circle for C is location associated with Z. Yes. Take 10, copy 10's in R value, copy it into the location, the value of the location associated with Z, which is right here. We're going to put 10 in there, and we're going to print out star star X. So where's star X? What does star X refer to? The location associated with Y. Yeah, the location that has the address of Y, which is this box. And then what is the star of this box? The location associated with Z. Yes, you take the address of Z, the value in here, look up the location associated with it. It's here. And so when we print it out, we're accessing the value in star star X star, or star star X. One dereference and then dereference this location. So we get this location. And so we print out 10. Does that make sense? Then we say star Y equals 100. So how do we get star Y? How do we figure it out? Not the thing that it points to. The value that's inside the location associated with Y. When we say what Y points to, we would say this. So Y is a location, has a location associated with it. There is a value inside of there. So when we do star Y, should be star Y, that should be switched. We're going to look up the value in, I should have fixed that now, otherwise I'll never forget, or I'll never remember. Okay. So we're going to get this, the value in the location associated with Y, ADZ, then look up, are there any locations with the address ADZ? This one, right? This location. And so we're setting, so this is the L value, and on the right-hand side, we have 100. So we're having 100 into this location. So we just take 100 and put it where? In the circle here? Yeah. How would this change if the value associated with Y was, like an integer and seven address? Would you try to look up the address of the integer, and do this? Just like with the fours and the eights. Yeah, I mean at the end of the day, we're only representing this like ADZ, ADY, because we don't, we're trying to say we don't know necessarily beforehand what those addresses are, but they are just integers. Yeah. That's the important thing. So we could look up, and look up the value. Exactly. Yes. Yes. That's how you get the problems. But that's all first. Yay. Okay. So we're going to copy 100 into here, right, into location associated with star Y, and then when we print out Z, what's it going to print out? 100. So, we kind of saw it here. So why, why, when I change star Y, why did Z change? It was associated with the location of Y contained in the address of Z. Okay. Yes. And what does that, so star Y, right, the expression star Y and Z, what do they both refer to? Unaddressed. The box. Yeah, location, right? Yeah, they both refer to the exact same location. So that's another way to think about it, right? Is Z refers to this, Z is bound to this memory location, and star Y references that same location. What about star star X? Yeah, it's actually another name for this location, right? So what we call these, we call these aliases. So this means that they are different names for the same location. So an alias is, yeah, two L values, so two different names, two different L values that have the same location. So at the end of execution, so what are all the aliases here? If I asked you on a test or midterm, you said, okay, here's a program at this point, what are the circle diagrams, what are the aliases at this point, and then what are the aliases at the end? So at the end of program execution, what are all the aliases here? We'll do pairs of them. For X. For X. Wait, what's the alias for X? X. That's the same name, so. Not as interesting. You can ignore aliases, yeah, they have to be different expressions or L values. Star X and Y. Star X and Y. Yeah, so star X also refers to the same location, so we have star X and Y. What are the other ones? So we have Y, star, and Z. What was the other one we said? Star, star, X. Star, star, X and Z. So these are all the same. Star, star, X. Okay, so let's look at them. I think there's some, what were some questions that we were talking about with this? I just thought like, hey, I should do an example after this, but I couldn't remember. Nobody remember? Do you have any questions on this? Yes. If you were to do star Z equals 50, does that mean it would try and go to the memory location 100 and put 50 in the value there? Yes, that's exactly what happens. Yes, okay, yes. So that's some of the things I want to look at. So if we had, if we had a program like, yeah, so if we said Z equal to 100, and we said star Z is equal to 50, like this, and we may need to do, if we actually wanted this to compile, right, we have to cast Z to an int star. So that would return, because the compiler's type system says, hey, you can only dereference a pointer data type, right? But this is just an integer. But Z will allow us to say, hey, I know you think this is an integer, but trust me, it's really an int pointer. And so this is exactly what it's going to do. So if we draw the box circle diagrams, we have our Z, right? We have our box. The value we put inside here is 100 at this line. And then when this line executes, it's going to try to look up any memory address, some memory address that has the value 100, and then set that value equal to 50. So if we can do that, it'll actually succeed, and it'll work just fine. If it doesn't, if it can't find something, then it's at fault. So this is also where you can get segmentation faults. So let's look at, and actually this is a good point. I want to look at some other code. So if I had code like this, let's say I have share our pointer, test. Ooh, always fun to do that, right? Okay, so we have a character pointer called test, and we want to say, what happens when we do, well, maybe this isn't the best, we change that, I think it's in read-only memory. Maybe we can write to it. Let's, let's leave it like this, whatever. It's just a simple example we can do whatever we want. Okay. So what actually happens here? So are there any pointer dereferences that are happening here? I explicitly know, but an array access is very similar. Is it very similar? How similar is it? Did you know you can write your array accesses like this? Do you believe me? Ooh. Let's, let's write some code. All right, I wasn't planning on doing this. Always fun to do coding exercises live. Test.c pound include. We need to be able to look at things. So we want standard io.h code up in main. What I say, character pointer test is equal to something like this. And what I say, test zero is equal to a, test five is equal to b, test three. So we'll print out the string first, percent s, test. So what's the percent s in the printout doing? Print out a string. Is that a string? Character? So let's see what happens. All right, we're going to not use, is everybody okay with us not using sento s for this and using the Mac compiler? It's found c code, it should be the same, right?  Successfully files. It's going to happen when we run it. What's the output going to be? Cs3 to 4 to you. And then the modified string? So it's going to be a s, I can't actually tell. a s e c 3 b exclamation point. Does everybody agree? Is it going to crash? I actually don't know 100% what's going to happen, but this is what I programmed. The only thing I'm worried about is this string, because it's a constant string, I don't know if it stores it in read-only memory. So I don't know if altering that, but I actually don't. Maybe it stores it as a global string. Yeah, it should be fine. Let's run it. No. Interesting. Okay, so when you get this, this one you want to make sure that it actually does it on the right thing. Why is it 3 test? Huh? On code you have 3 test? Yes, because I'm making a point. I just haven't made it yet. Okay. There we go. Okay, compile. So it did put it in there. Tricky, we all learned something there. I think, let's check. Just to make sure that there wasn't something like that. It's still acceptable. Can you initialize a character array using quotation and you still access it? That's what I'm thinking, no. I'm thinking it's... So you had to do it with the curly string. String.h. We can do it quick. We'll just duplicate the string. So we're trying to copy the string and then we should be able to do whatever we want to. Is this going to work? The string in string.heil or string.h. How do I find out if I want to know what header file defines string. Google it. Google it. Way quicker way. I have to go all the way to Google and I know you don't have my browser open but I don't want to show my browser to you guys because it's weird. All of your beautiful Linux machines comes with an entire manual that has manuals for every single function and every single batch command. So you can just do man string do. Look at it, it tells you exactly how to include string.h. It tells you all the functions. It tells you how you want to duplicate it, everything. There are examples on how to use it. It'll tell you that of course my font is big but it'll tell you that it calls malloc to allocate the memory for the string but that means that you have to make sure you call three. If you want to look up what does malloc do?  Look at this, so much faster than Google search. ASIC4V. Okay, that was successful. So why? So what's happening here? Let's see. Can I just copy this? I'm actually surprised that worked. Okay, so what's happening? Why did that work? It's close to the assembly style way of doing it. It's close to the assembly style way of doing it? So what's my box circle diagram look at this line for test? What does test look like? A constant string is assigned to a new memory location and then the test test gets its own box. Yes, test is bound to some location. Do we know the location? No. We don't really care. We'll follow it. What's the value inside test? Nothing yet. Let's say before this assignment operator happens, right? So there's something in there. We don't know exactly what it is. Right? And so CSE340 is going to be stored somewhere. Right? That's going to be maybe location beta. And what is string dupe going to do? Copy it to a location. Copy to a new location. Yeah, exactly. So it's going to copy that whole string so it's going to create a new location with enough... I'm running out of Greek letters. What's that for beta? Oh, that's right. Okay. I have to look at it all again. It's an upside down. It's an upside down? We'll... Just do lambda. Lambda is good. It's going to get confusing. We'll get to lambda. Okay. So we have CSE340 exclamation point. And technically, there's actually a zero byte here right at the end because C-style will terminate the strings. So there'll be a zero byte there. So... Okay. Then what... So then string dupe is going to create that and return lambda. And so what does this assignment do? It assigns the circle to lambda. Yeah. Which circle? There's three circles here. Yeah. Well... You want to do the whole thing? Not really. Let's go practice. The search... The location associated with tests is going to add lambda into that, right? So test is... as the value of lambda. So where does star test point to? Which location? This one? Yes. So we print it out. It's going to print out this whole string. So the percent s is actually going to iterate over the string length and it's going to print out basically tests. Test zero as a test zero as a character, because that's true as a character all the way until it gets to a zero byte. So then how does that access work? So when I see this line specifically test zero is equal to a. Yeah. So first, what is the array access actually doing? What are the semantics of the array access? It dereferences. Dereferences what? The... Dereferences So can you rewrite this into equivalent valid C code that's more of what actually happens? Yes. Star what? It would be multiplied by something. Zero times something. Size of? Yeah, size of. So where are the parentheses on this, like this? Like this? Yeah, so this actually... So somebody were talking about size of at the C level you don't have to worry about that because pointer arithmetic will automatically increment the pointer the size of whatever the pointer is so that's why if you do test plus zero test plus zero is obviously test. Right? Okay. So what is the character... What is... What's the data types of star test? Character. Yeah, how big is a character? How many bytes? A single byte. How many bytes do we have in here? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 8 bytes in here. So what's test plus zero doing this arithmetic? What's that going to be? Test plus zero? Test. Lambda. It's just lambda, right? So what's star lambda then? C. Yeah, so it's a little bit tricky, right? Because this is actually an array of contiguous elements. So really if we wanted to draw this more precisely we would have lambda, the value inside there is the character C. Yeah, so what's this address? Lambda plus 1. Lambda plus 1 is going to have the character S and lambda plus 2 is going to have the character E and so on all the way through, right? So the location of lambda is actually this guy. Right? So star test actually points to this guy. And so we do test plus zero is lambda. Right? Because the address the value inside the location associated with test is lambda. And then we dereference that.  Oh, it's here. So then I'm going to change that to be what? Character A, right? Which is going to be some specific bit pattern. And then our more abstract model here that's going to change this to be right? Okay. So what about the next line? Test 5 is equal to B. So what's that equivalent to? Or test plus 5. Yeah, start test plus 5. So test plus 5 is lambda plus 5. Lambda plus 5. Right? So lambda plus 5 is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 here. So I'm going to set that to be what? B. B. So we're going to change this to be B. And now 3 test equals C. So what's that? What's 3 test equivalent to? Star 3 plus test. Is it any different from any of these cases? No, it's exactly the same. So what's 3 plus test? Lambda plus 3, the value lambda plus 3. And so star lambda plus 3 is going to return that location that's associated with lambda plus 3. Lambda plus 3 is 0, 1, 2, 3 here. And it's going to set that equal to C. 0, 1, 2, 3. And now we print that out. This should be the string that we printed out, right? So this is, so specifically the array access is just syntactic sugar for for doing pointer arithmetic. So it's saying like start at test, go 5 elements down, and the size that this actually moves in terms of memory depends on the size of the thing that's being pointed to. In this case, it's character, so it's actually just bytes, so it's going to offset it by 1. Actually by 1 when it goes back to memory. So it makes sense to me if you have the name of the array and then you have the parameter how much to add. But why would they also give you the option of doing it the weird 3 brackets with the name of the array inside? Just simple. So the question is, so in this case maybe it's clear because it's a value. But what if we had code that was like I mean then you have to kind of be more careful about who's what and all this kind of things. It's honestly just A for probably consistency purposes and the fact that all this is is a translation to this. Or all that these are just merely translations for this. So that's why when I mean that it's syntactic sugar what that means is that there's already a way to write this expression in the C language. This thing that you can do here you can do just like this. But it's a little more cumbersome and it doesn't quite convey exactly what you want to do. So they allow you a super easy way like this and they just translate between the two. Or not between but they just translate very clearly between the two. If they were thinking far ahead of like oh everyone in the world is going to be using C code and C applications then yeah it would be nice to use the type system to say no actually with the array access you have to have only you know an int or something like that in the access but it just looks really weird. So C is still valid. C is just written such that when you have an array access where you have something with the brackets and then something else in the brackets you're just adding the two and then finding the value with that location. Yep. It's exactly equivalent to this. So similarly if I have a if I have a struct a pointer to a struct food called test or we're running out of tests so we have a variable name and a handlebar. 10. Well it's not temporary though. Okay so two pointer, malloc, size of okay I think that's mostly right right so we're going to create some new thing and now when I do 10 if I do 10 equals one of the let's go bar right when I do this this is actually also syntactic sugar for start it's actually start temp I don't know what to say to this start temp.bar right because if I struct struct food called not temp right I could I could access element bar by not temp.bar right is equal to 10 so all of this so this arrow access is just syntactic sugar for this so it does automatic translation for dereference the thing on the left and then turn it into a structure access for the thing on the right this is all this does and then you can combine them together right so you can be like array i and that'll be something like array plus i so this will be star of that and then take that whole thing or dereference let's see dereference that whole thing right and then call access structure bad right so this actually has two pointer dereferences right so array is going to be a pointer to an array a pointer of structures this makes sense alright I think we've covered a lot today I'm actually super happy cool alright have a good spring break see you next Monday


Tom Brady tells Colin Cowherd that he will start on Fox in the fall of 2024 the $375 million deal over ten years, which has obviously been talked about since immediately hearing about it paying In three hundred seventy five million big as they've all time ten years We got him for the next decade Tom Brady gris about time you ever heard of him We got him and then everybody's like is that break that's breaking is that breaking boom Tom Brady has signed for $375 million to call Fox that is how we were introduced to the news Of Tom Brady becoming a Fox sports commentator. Yep


would like to be here to speak to this Max Conference. And of course we discuss non-equilibrium physics and about how non-equilibrium physics is related to HPC systems. So let me say that to run simulations on HPC systems and to design the code for HPC systems. It's sometimes a thing but it of course offers also the opportunity to do simulations po nemu ječnem izgrednimi.  Proto, bomo počasem, da polidoj državce bili nemaželji, če samo je izvalalo na prangentna specija teori. In so bi voživкого načinati v daljih priključanjo, Premaj, da je je koncerto, da se nasenjemo CouldThumb ajdeא nespešnev Medicare, zato skupel je nekrat, že legače z večtina vzela nekaj, kaj je in tudi zamišnev in nekaj, da se se nekaj nekrije obsošenje nespešnev Leahskega obsošenje,其實 nekaj je nekaj nekako obsošenje. is that we can consider to describe from the first principle new physics, and here for new physics I mean out of equilibrium physics, so we can think of running first principle simulations of materials in highly non-equilibru situations, which of course there is a lot of new physics, and these kind of simulations are very demanding, The answer is what I would like to discuss about today. I start with my introduction which I used already a couple of times to explain what is non-equilibrium physics and ultra-fast physics. I start with a picture of the human eye because this is the instrument that we mostly use to try to explore the world which is around us. And it is a very powerful instrument but of course it has limitation both in space and in time resolution. Prvé, da smo pošli problem events in izgledali o domenju. Prvič, da smo izgledali o domenju, je se vzgledali z Galileo, iz 16.09. Zelo se tudi zaeleskop lukov vendom, imeli na stah ni pravdi. Proveso se iglim del配on, zgleda jenje internet, tudi vsega elektrovana mikroskopija, in nekaj nekaj da počekaj tudi vsega latonija, je vsega pukrana grafina v 2011, so nene objevno od ovega. Z njač delno, da pa posebimo zbičaj sej, ovo je napravil nekaj nekaj, da je 10, 6, 10, 7. Zelo, nekaj je začnega? In tukaj počuče sem postavljeni postavljeni v 1791, vzvečenju mnjela na vzveč, ko je vzveč. Vzveč je vzveč, da je vzveč, kako je vzveč na vzveč. Vzveč je tukaj, kako je vzveč vzveč, ker je nekaj vzveč, da je vzveč vzveč, tako, da ne rezovamo v izgledanju, zelo se rovno v početku. If we compare these, with instead the first movie of the history, I would say it was taken in 1878 in Palo Alto, it was indeed a series of 16 pictures of EOS running, and here we see that there is never a moment where the EOS is floating with the legs stretched, so the closest situation to the picture is maybe this one, but the EOS is always touching the ground, and just when the legs are, let's say, not stretched, the EOS is floating over the ground while running. So this is a nice example of taking pictures in sequence, which we can somehow overcome the limitation of our eye. And of course this was the first result, and well, how fast we can go. So I represent a few important moments, so this is the Nobel Prize, which was given in 1967 for the invention of the photolysis method, which was invented some years before, and it enabled the observation of chemical reaction, so 10 to the minus six seconds, or one microsecond. So some years later, another Nobel Prize in 1999, this time, was given for the ability to absorb femtosecond spectroscopy, actually close to picosecond spectroscopy. So we have been able to observe the motion of the atoms. Indeed, if we consider the atoms, and if we consider the typical coulomb interaction between two ions, and the mass of the atom from simple laws of classical physics, which we see that the time in which a atom moves is of the order of 100 femtoseconds. And beyond that, there is the dynamics of the electrons. So the electrons, using the Bohr model, we can see that they move on a time scale, which is close to one femtosecond, a little below. And so this is the kind of physics that we can now try to observe with the modern laser passes. And here in this plot, I represent the time duration of laser passes, which one can imagine to be used to take a picture of the electron dynamics. So here you see the time duration, and this is the period in which the fastest laser pass was created. And in particularly staying in the visible UV range, now we have reached the duration of below 10 femtoseconds. And this is the kind of experiment I would like to describe. So I have to say that if one goes in the X-ray, instead can even have passes below one femtoseconds, but for this presentation I will focus on this kind of physics, so with passes in the visible UV range. And this is the kind of physics which can be described or measured with this kind of passes. And it is, of course, related to electron dynamics. So here is the representation of the duration of the pass, and here of the different kind of processes I would like to model from first principles. And one important observation is that if one tries to model this kind of physics with time-dependent density functional theory, basically one can describe the absorption of photons, the coherent dynamics which follows, but not much more of all these physical processes. And one of the reasons is that for TDF team practicers we know the adiabatic approximation. This is well-established, but we don't know how to use instead the frequency-dependent kernes in the equation of motion. And then it is harder to include all these kind of processes. And instead if we move to many more perturbation theory, we have a way to include all these kind of processes. So here is a picture of a typical pump and probe experiment where you can measure the electron's dynamics. So there is a first short pass which is sent on the sample and then the dynamics is activated. And after some time delay, a second pass which is in this case emitting the electron from the system which is then detected and changing the delay between the pump and the probe, one can try to have a picture of the dynamics of electrons. And here I reported here a couple of papers where this kind of dynamics was measured in bulk silicon. And in particular they pumped near the optical gap of silicon so a direct injecting electron from the top of the valence band to the conduction band and then measuring the intensity of photoemission signal from this point in the Brillouin zone. And here you see the picture of the intensity. And the simple mind interpretation is that electrons are injected here or in this region, in this valley from the pump pass which is here in red. And then electrons cut from here to the minimum of the conduction band so the signal goes down. And this is a simple interpretation and I will show you how we can try to describe that and if this matches with the first principle simulations. Another kind of experiment which is similar in the spirit so there is again a pump pass sent to the material and with a given time delay probe but this time instead of photoemitting an electron what is detected is the reflection of the probe signal. So this is an experiment which has been done for example in these two papers. Again bulk silicon pumping near the optical gap. And in this case I will consider instead of the signal from this paper a signal we got from a collaboration where with Polytechnic of Milano. So this is a typical reflectivity signal it depends on the frequency of the probe pulse and it is represented at fixed delay between the pump of the probe. And of course one could also change the delay and see how this profile changes. And I would like also to outline that pump and probe experiments are nice to see the electron dynamics to see new physics but there is also strong technological interest because if you can control the electron dynamics basically you can control the magnetization dynamics of the system and magnetization is what is used to basically record information. So here in the picture you see the way you can control magnetization and the easiest way is using an external magnetic field but with a laser pulse you can even think about controlling the magnetization on a much shorter time scale. And indeed there have been a lot of work I am just highlighting two papers where the control of magnetization using ultra short laser pulses has been realized so it has been proposed in ultra fast devices where one can read and write information on the fem to second time scale. And even in this case this is taken from this review a proper theoretical framework to describe the ultra fast dynamics remains challenging. So the message is that there are a lot of experiments which can be done with pump and probe setup this is a table top setup and which strongly need a proper theoretical description because it is not easy to describe this kind of experiment in an intuitive way and not only table top experiments but there are also experiments done at large facilities for example at the free electron laser this is a picture of the field which is nearby here in Trieste. So how I would like to do all this from first principles and the idea is that I want to start from a standard ground state calculation where I compute the equilibrium properties so the structure of the system and even the phonons and the electron phonon matrix elements and then I would like to use that to describe the interaction with the pump the scattering mechanism and then eventually also the measurement process. How I do that in practice I want to use many body perturbation theory so I start from DFT and then I want to merge the DFT with many body perturbation theory so I use what we call ab initio many body perturbation theory where the konešan way functions and again energies are used as a zero order theory to construct the green function and then to solve the equation for the many body perturbation theory. Of course it is computationally very demanding and this is why I say that HPC system can be helping that but the nice thing is that it is an approach which is very powerful predictive and parameter free so this is how it works in practice in silicon so here is the starting point representation of the mass structure of silicon I start with a DFT mass structure which is the dashed one and then I compute the quasi particle correction then I also compute the phonons dispersion and then I plug these two ingredients together with the wave functions and electron phonon matrix elements in my equation of motion so what I solved is an equation of motion where there is explicitly the pump pulse there is the equilibrium mass structure and there are the many body correlations and then importantly there are there is this scattering term which takes into account of the scattering processes for example with phonons in the system it is an equation of motion so I need say the equilibrium the starting point which is the starting point of my g lesser which is nothing but the density matrix of the system projected on the Konešan mass structure so these m and k indexes are the indexes of the mass structure I prepared the equation of motion and I can extract different information for example the polarization but mainly what I will use is the occupations on the mass structure as a function of time and this time will be the time delay from the pump pulse which can be obtained from the diagonal elements and I can even use these occupations to construct the the unequilibrium linear response of the system and then for example the absorption so I came back to the experiment I was showing a few slides ago these pump and probe experiments on silicon and I tried to to simulate this experiment and the first thing we realized is that if I apply a laser pulse to the system to the mass structure of the system this pulse is linearly polarized and it will break some of the symmetries in the Brillouin zone so what happens here is that the polarization of the electric field is directed along a precise direction and then in particular the L points in the Brillouin zone of bike silicon they will not be all equivalents anymore so here is a representation in need of the band structure with both L and L prime so the bands are the same but what happens is that the pulse is mainly injecting electron around L and not at L prime because for selection so we use the excitations of electron at L prime are forbidden so after that one can imagine what happens there are two degenerate levels one which is occupied and the other not and there is a very fast transfer of electrons from L to L prime so we did the simulation and with that we were able to reproduce very nicely the time decay of the experiment and just after there is disequilibration then the electrons scatter to the minimum of the conduction band and then eventually they cool and connected to that I would like to discuss also an interesting concept which is related to the lifetime of a level so here we were describing experimentally they were measuring the time it takes to an electron to go from in out of equilibrium state L to relax to the minimum and we are used to think that the lifetime is related in many body perturbation theory to the imaginary part of the self energy which in photoemission is related to the width of a photoemission peak so what I would like to compare is how this lifetime is connected with the simulation I did and in particular if I think that the lifetime is connected to the width I am thinking that the population of a specific level will decay in time with this specific lifetime which means here this lifetime this level the population in this level is dictated by an equation of motion like this one but indeed during the theory in the matter what once obtained is an equation of motion like this one and you see the difference here so here the population is reduced in time by the electronic lifetime and this describes what are called the out processes but there is also another term which is zero equilibrium which describes the processes of electron jumping in the level because there can be electrons in other points of the bus structure so if I want something which matches this idea I can simply divide and multiply by the electronic occupation and write an effective equation with this lifetime which now has this form and it will be time dependent so what I do is to compare this effective lifetime of the equilibrium lifetime during my simulation and here is a plot so this is the equilibrium lifetime and this is the effective lifetime at L and we see that at the beginning of the simulation they are very close so the pump is pumping electron just here and so the electron can scatter mostly everywhere in the Brillouin zone and so the lifetime is the equilibrium concept but then after some time this channel is closed and it is closed because electrons can still jump here but there will be also electron jumping back all the lifetime and so there is a fast drop of the lifetime in energy so it becomes much longer in time ok, another nice thing that I can do is I can take my population and I plot them as a function of the energy at different time step and this is what is pictured here so here is the population in the conduction band at equilibrium I have no electrons, it is 0 and then the pump pass starts to inject electrons in the conduction band and in particular also here I see that the occupation of the L level is much higher than the occupation of the L prime level and then since there are electron phonons scattering process the electrons spread everywhere in the mass structure and this is what is happening here so the L and L prime levels are the same now and then they go towards the minimum and they start to form a fermilike distribution with a temperature which is then decreasing because my system is giving energy to the lattice so the electrons are cooling at the beginning the temperature is very high and for the moment in the simulation the temperature of the lattice is kept fixed at equilibrium and so you see that the system is cooling and cooling and then if I go on with the simulation it will eventually reach the temperature of the lattice ok, maybe I can stop here I had also the other experiment but I think I will not have time so I would like to mention that all these results are part of a a collaboration so I am working with André Marini at the Cienar ISM and we are doing both theory and code developing with the Yambo code we have a collaboration with Enrico Perfetto and Gianluca Stefanucci which also are using non-equilibrium functions and they also have their own code which is called CHIRS which is meant for models or isolated systems and recently we have interfaced the two codes and then that we are also using the coding collaboration with a group in Modena who is now left science now but did part of the simulations in other material which I didn't discuss today and Aléandro Molina Sanchez in Spain is also using the the code for doing simulation and that's it thank you and a list of references


Okay, we're going to get started. I'm Dan Rundy. I hold the Shrier Chair here at CSIS. It's a real privilege to have Peter Lonsky-Tiffenthal, who's the Undersecretary General for Communications and Public Information at the United Nations. I think we're going to have a very interesting conversation today.  He's a very accomplished diplomat from Austria. He's been with the United Nations two years. A little less than two years. A little less than two years. I thought we might have a conversation that talked both about the United Nations and sort of what it's for and what it's about, and just put that on the table, because I think he's, as a leader in the United Nations system, I think that's an interesting place to start. And then what we'd like to do is have a further part of the conversation around the MDGs and the Millennium Development Goals, because I think it's one of the important things that the United Nations carries out. As many of you know, here at CSIS, we've worked very hard on the issue of the United States in the multilateral system. We work from a bias of that the United States should be a leader in whether it's the multilateral development banks, such as the World Bank or the regional development banks, as well as the United States being actively engaged, and frankly, and this is my opinion, leading many of these organizations in a direction of having a rules-based systems in the United States interest, even if sometimes there are perhaps some areas of disagreement. And so overall, that's our general bias here at CSIS, and so it's really a privilege and pleasure to have you as a result of that. So, Mr. Secretary, could you just, so Peter, thank you. So Peter, you know, when I have conference, I'm going to start first with the broader question. I have many family members who are very bright people, who are very well-educated people who are Americans, who would say to me over Thanksgiving, why is the United States in the United Nations? Why should it be in the United Nations? I see all these negative stories about the United Nations. Why are we doing this? And if you go to various parts of the United States, you will see in the middle of cornfields, and it's easy in Washington among a cosmopolitan group to write these people off, but you know, they vote and they have a voice as well. What's your answer for those folks who are thoughtful people who are maybe UN skeptics about why the United States should be in the United Nations and what good does the United Nations do? Well, first of all, Dan, thank you so much for the invitation. My relationship with CSIS goes back 25 years when I served with the Austrian mission here for the first time in the 1990s, and I still remember your old home, and I think Bob Hunter at that time was the head of CSIS, so it's great coming back. And thank you so much to all of you. Some of you had the chance to greet personally, sorry that I didn't have a chance to do that on the side of the aisle. With regard to your first question, obviously that's a question that keeps coming up very often, and particularly given that the United States is home to the United Nations headquarters in New York, I think that question is even more relevant. And I must tell you, we are asking ourselves that question too in the context of our relationship with the city of New York, because my feeling is that we are not reaching out enough to the city of New York, even though that would be a very natural relationship, given that the multicultural, multilingual kind of setup of our group within UN headquarters in New York corresponds nearly one-to-one to the wider New York area, and I think it should be a natural fit. One explanation why it doesn't happen the way it should probably is that we are organizing a lot of events behind closed doors, and catering again and again to a very similar audience. And so I think we should reach out more to the city of New York, we should organize some of the events that we keep organizing indoors with partners, be it the Metropolitan Museum, be it the Think Tank, be it, I don't know, a film festival, a media outlet and so on, and I think people would feel our presence, not just through parking tickets and traffic jams during the GA, but they would feel it also in the context of a positive contribution to the world. I think that's sort of a more general remark, but that is also true for the relationship between the UN and the United States overall. I think we failed in making a compelling case why the United Nations is relevant to the lives of each and every one of us, and particularly each and every one of the United States citizens, because we recognize that the government, when it comes to helping us financially and with very considerable means, it has to get the support from the public at large. So unless and until we can tell a compelling story and make our case, it is very difficult for your respective governments, whether from the Republican or Democratic side, to provide us with necessary funds. So I think we should be better in telling the story and better in answering the question that you asked in the first place. Now I get that we have to start from an assumption, we have to start from the assumption that many of the challenges that this world is facing are challenges that we can only tackle if we work together in partnership. In partnership with other countries, in partnership with think tanks, with civil society, with the academic world, with the corporate world, and with the world of science, and not the least also with the media, because unless and until our work is being communicated and shared with the wider public at large, we will not get the kind of resonance that we want. So if we start, if that were to be the starting point, I would say I think more people would understand the necessity to work through an institution like the United Nations. In the many conversations I had in this year and a half, and as someone who has come from the outside to the United Nations myself, I had kind of noticed very effective work on the humanitarian side and lack of transparency on the political side. And my experiences go back to floodings in Bangladesh. They go back to earthquake in Pakistan. They go back to protecting cultural heritage in Nepal or in Bhutan since I served for many years in South Asia. And they go back to the UN's presence in Vienna as another of the UN headquarters, dealing with issues like organized crime, dealing with the issue of human trade, dealing with the issue of drugs. I think the UN does a fairly good job, but again, does not tell the story well enough on those issues. In some cases out of respect to the member state affected by a crisis, and in some cases also due to respect for the individuals that we try to help, an individual that's in dire straits in a war-torn area, for example. When it comes to the political side, I think we fail to explain why decision making processes in institutions like the United Nations takes such a long time and can be so tedious. We have not laid it open. Now I get at the challenges we are facing on that front is the UN is a member states driven organization. The member states pay our my salary. The member states, through their mandates, tell us what they would like us to do and not just what they would like us to do, but in many cases also how they would like us to do it. And we're trying as civil servants in a way, and that's what we are, maybe we're international civil servants, to kind of execute what we've been mandated to do and add the dimension, and that is the leadership role that the Secretary General and the Deputy Secretary General assume, add the kind of taking the lead to bring member states along with regard to new ideas, new approaches, new ways of solving problems. Now having worked for about a year and a half within the organization in New York, I think a lot of these external impressions that I had when I joined, I felt came true also from the impressions that I got while working at the Secretariat in New York. It is true that we are making a hell of a effort when it comes to humanitarian cases. Just as we are sitting here together, 36 million refugees are being taken care of by the United Nations around the world, and that means providing shelter, providing food, providing medical assistance, and providing basic access to education for children in those camps to make their stay as, quote, unquote, worthwhile as possible. While we are sitting here, 90 million people around the world who have no access to sufficient food are being fed in 75 countries and provided with food so that they can survive.  And vaccinations against deadly diseases that would otherwise lead to a very high or much higher mortality rate among newborn children. And I could give you quite a large number of additional examples. Now it is true that when we watch the example on the basis of Syria, we realize the limitations of those humanitarian efforts, because after all, we are operating in a war zone. Whether we like it or not, we have to talk to all the parties to get a convoy of chemical weapons inspectors from their hotel to the site where these chemical weapons were being stored, means to negotiate for many, many hours, sometimes days, sometimes weeks, to get this convoy from the headquarters to the site. And while you've kind of come to an agreement with the government held area, opposition A held area, opposition B held area, you have to restart because sometimes the front lines have started changing. So you spend a hell of a lot of time to get these convoys to their goal. Unfortunately the same is true for the humanitarian assistance in this area and we've heard a lot about it. So we realize these limitations, but at the same time I think if it weren't for the UN, I don't think anyone would want to go there to stick their neck out, being shot at on a regular basis, being unfortunately some cases killed or taken hostage. So the choice is not a very pleasant one. And you feel a kind of commitment by colleagues out in the field in very close cooperation with many NGOs. And I think I would like to stress this point, if it weren't for the NGOs, I think a lot of things that we are trying to achieve, we could not be achieving because these NGOs know their way around locally, they know the different decision makers locally and their input is essential to our work. Coming back to the original question, I think our humanitarian involvement when it comes to making a difference in people's lives around the world, that if it won't be done by the UN may have to be done by the United States or others, not just would create the danger of putting U.S. citizens on the line or at risk of being hurt or killed, but it would also increase the costs dramatically for the United States or other countries who may have to do that job. On the political front, given that I admit it is sometimes very tedious and we've seen it also on the basis of Syria repeatedly, if one were to agree with the basic principle that diplomacy should be given a chance before we send in our sons and daughters into a war zone, I think the UN has certain merits for that effort. That effort in the case of the Democratic Republic of Congo quite recently fortunately succeeded. We were able for the first time to protect civilian population because the peacekeepers were given a robust mandate to defend civilian population that was being attacked by rebel fighters. And unfortunately we've seen other areas, Shrebrenica and Rwanda in the more recent past where we've terribly failed, partly also because we were not given the resources and the means to protect the civilian population. So I would say if the United States wanted to share the burden, both of responsibility and resources with the rest of the world in terms of combating crisis spots that if they were not to be resolved could have repercussions all the way back to the U.S., the UN is the only way to proceed. Tell me, you've served in the United States as an Austrian diplomat, you've also served all over the world, you're a European, is the reaction towards let's call it perceived threats of sovereignty that the UN sometimes represents, is that, is the reaction that you get here in the United States, is that a unique reaction or do you see that in other parts of the world, just talk a little bit about that. On the questions of sovereignty, I think there are two angles to look at it. I think the major focus of criticism by the United States and other member states, mostly of the Northern Hemisphere, and rightly so, are in the direction of not effective enough, not reacting fast enough, not being successful enough on our operations to really make a difference quickly. And that, unfortunately, is true when you have to take into account the decision-making process that involves a lot of partners and participants. I mean, imagine a family of four, in our case five, if we were to try to take a decision on the holiday destination sometimes, it takes a hell of a lot of time not to talk about a war and peace-like situation of 15 member states in the Security Council or five, sorry, 15 and five permanent members of the Security Council. So the processes that, and the rules that we as member states have given ourselves sometimes prevent us from acting quicker and be more effective than we would like to be. On the political side, it's a debate that I've also been following in the context of the European Union. By becoming members of a club, you submit yourself to the rules of the club. Those who are in favor of joining say, well, I'd rather sit around the table and be actively part of the shaping of the rules and hopefully improve the rules rather than being an outsider who's being imposed, on whom others impose the way forward. And I think in that sense, sovereignty can be regained through active participation in the process. And in that sense, it comes to a link to the first question that you ask if you choose to be part of the club and if you choose to actively sort of shape the organization, I get that the price of slight reduction in sovereignty becomes more acceptable. So that's how I do it. I think about a number of, I think, successes of the United Nations. When I was in the Bush administration, I helped fund something called Growing Inclusive Markets, which is an initiative that's at the UNDP. My view was, if you could get the French at the time in 2003 when we weren't, France is our favorite shooting buddy now, I think is the term of art, I think, here in Washington. But basically, we were not getting along with the French at the time. You had the French, you had various parts of the UN system funding, an initiative that said the private sector is an important actor in development. My view at the time when I was in the Bush administration is having the UN say it was a lot more important than if the Americans said it or if the World Bank said it. I think about things like the Arab Human Development Report, which I think the first one in 2002 I think changed the world. I think it was a very powerful document. Or I think about the great success in many ways of making it acceptable to think about the UN Global Compact, the initiative that Kofi Annan started of getting companies to sign on to a set of rules and trying to bring in the private sector. I think he went to MIT's business school and so had a, so those are three examples I'm aware of. Could you just talk about, and this I think will lead into the conversation around the MDGs in a second, but talk about you've been there for 18 months, what's been, has the power of the brand or the power of the imprimatur been surprising to you and give an example of how that's surprised you, I would suspect that's probably come up in your current role. We talked about the importance of partnerships and my own department, for example, works increasingly with the creative community, with Hollywood, with Bollywood, with Nollywood, and with television programs around the world, in such a way that script writers, for example, of an NBC program called Revolution based on the world without power, without electricity, the script writers would sit down with UN experts on sustainable energy and talk about messages without referencing the UN directly, could be included in different episodes of the program. And to answer sort of your last part of the question, I was very surprised how open the creative community was or is vis-a-vis a cooperation with the UN. Somehow, and it would probably be best asking them directly yourself, but my impression was the UN's affiliation to a project that is meant to be meaningful is being perceived as imprimatur or is in a way as adding moral value to the product of a commercial product like a film. Other forms of cooperation are sort of more trivial, like the episode of Amazing Race, the last one was being shot at UN headquarters, and the questions asked to the participants were related to the flags of the member states or the languages spoken in those states or the kind of population, how many people live in that country, and other trivial questions. So we are trying to reach out to that particular sector to team up. We are reaching out to the academic community. There's an initiative that was launched by the Secretary-General, by this Secretary-General called UN Academic Impact, whereby 1,200 universities so far have committed themselves to lending some of their programs to UN priority teams, through conferences, through seminars, through speaking engagements, or other forms of activities. Third group is civil society. DPI alone has 1,600 NGOs that we are working with on the daily basis worldwide. We are briefing them weekly on topical developments both live in New York and via webcast around the world. And we are gearing up for a conference of these NGOs in late August, helping us to work on the preparation, both of the transition between MDGs and the goals thereafter, as well as in preparation of the Secretary-General's climate summit on the 23rd of September. And the fourth group, last but not least on the country, is the group of the global compact that you mentioned. This group by now contains 8,000 corporations worldwide that have, as you mentioned rightly, committed themselves to certain standards in their operations. And they've become a very essential partner of UN's work, and some of you may have seen a piece in the Financial Times yesterday on the business pages talking about the economic impact of climate change and how important it is through investments in climate change to become and be a successful businessman or businesswoman. And I think one way is to kind of link in the corporate world even more in our process, because I think by the corporate community speaking up in favor of such investments, we can get climate change from the business pages to the front pages of the newspapers and other reports. So, okay, in the year 2000, there was a series of processes that led to 150-plus heads of state signing on to eight big goals called the Millennium Development Goals that had, in essence, reducing extreme poverty, among others, around there were goals on health, there's goals on water, goals on education. The goals are up, are coming due, if you will, in 2015 next year. There's been a review process called the high-level panel process of eminent persons. I don't know who comes up with these long names. I'm sure it's not your department that does, I hope. I can tell you when I joined the job, many people advised me the first thing you have to do is to abolish your own title, because I'm the secretary general for public. Who comes up with this stuff, right? So, there was the high-level panel of eminent persons that put out a paper that said the goals are eight. Actually, it's quite a good paper. A colleague at Brookings wrote much of it, Homie Carras, and if you haven't read it, I recommend you do read it. It's actually quite well done, and I think reflects sort of the changed world from 15 years ago when the first set of goals were done. But, and then I understand the secretary general, and you probably had something to do with this, wrote there, so there was a paper that was put together, very well done, with this high-level panel, David Cameron, the head of the Ellen Johnson Surleaf, SBY from Indonesia, were the three co-chairs, and then sort of John Podesta, who was here two days ago, was on it from the United States. I think it's John Michelle Severino from France, who was the former head of AFD, very capable person, among many others, were on this. They said, keep the original eight more or less, and here's several things to think about. One is livelihoods, which I guess is UN speak for jobs in the private sector. One was good governance, I hope you'll come back to explain to me what livelihoods means in plain English. Governance was another, something about how do we reconcile the environment and development, and then some cross-cutting things, like do something about big data, and think about youth. Was sort of the bumper sticker, as far as I could tell from the paper, it's been a while since I last read it, but those were the ones I took away. So then the Secretary General responded and said, I see this paper, thanks for sending me this paper. I like governance, or that was my read-up, and I'm putting my bias on it, and I'm very much in favor of trying to get a governance goal out of the, and I know the UK government would like to see that too. I was in Ottawa yesterday, and asked the foreign ministry people there, I said, so what do you guys want out of the MDGs? And they said, we want mother to child health, that's our main thing, and that's what we're known for, and we might do something on child marriage, that was the other thing, there's something big on child marriage for them. So we've talked about some of these soft power initiatives, there's this thing called the MDGs, they're up for review, they're up for a refresh, talk about that process of the refresh which you're looking at right now, talk about how the SG and his team are thinking about this, certainly I know there's this paper, but also talk about the response from the SG and his team and talk about what the process looks like over the next year, and if you would also, if you would care to comment on either livelihoods or governance, I'm particularly interested in that, and also knowing where my bias is, meaning I'd like to see a governance goal at the end of this, talk a little bit about what you think the chances are of that. Sure, I will try. Big talk. All in three minutes or less, right? Okay. I think there seems to be general agreement that these so-called millennium development goals, those eight goals, and I think one of them that you didn't mention is poverty, reduction of poverty or elimination ideally. Those goals and the international efforts around those goals in the course of 2000 till 2014 have made a big difference in the lives of hundreds of millions of people. So I think as much as we are still far away in many of the goals from reaching them by the end of 2015, I think at least from our point of view and the point of view of scientists around the world, tremendous progress has been made that may not, or for sure may not have been made if there hadn't been a concerted effort by governments, by civil society, by business community, and by other partners in the media also to get to this progress. Now, I think the millennium development goals also managed to create a brand name for themselves. I think they were quite simple, they were quite easy to understand, people could relate to them, and they were communicable. I mean, you could pass them on, you could share them, you could depict them in an icon. And they were compelling. And they were compelling. So from our point of view, it is a success story that still needs a lot of effort, but there's a success out there. And now the question that has come up is how do we build on that success, on that momentum, and identify additional goals that are based on existing needs around the world, and not just in the South, but across the planet. And as you rightly mentioned, there's a certain process that is going on right now. You referred to the Secretary General's report, you referred to the high level panel, you didn't refer to the working group. I didn't wanna, I was gonna mess up that they knew there were these open working groups. I couldn't really pronounce them, so I was hoping you were gonna say what they were gonna do. Basically, representatives of member states are sitting together to try and come up with a list of additional goals. And not just identify those goals, but give them a name that can be communicated and that could be understood, and that would be compelling enough so that the public and the governments and the private sector and civil society would feel committed to work on those goals. And that's where we are really stuck right now. Many, many goals have been put forward. You mentioned some of those. It is not absolutely clear at this stage which goals will eventually make it all the way through. What seems to be clear is that these goals should be applicable really to the world at large. That's why issues like energy came up, the issue of urban development, cities. The other day I sat in a talk from an expert on global cities who said currently cities are occupying 2% of the land mass. And within only 20, 25 years, that may go up to 7%. And what that means in terms of pollution, what it means in terms of energy consumption, what it means in terms of urban poverty, and so on and so forth. So stress on the environment, stress on many other fronts. So that's why the issue of cities is also included. Then as you rightly put it, the issue of governance, governance comes in. Now the term governance, and maybe you can help us to find a better term that explains what government, how can we make governance relevant and understandable to the public at large? We have to explain, because governance, at least from my understanding, applies across the board. It is a cross-cutting issue. It does not apply only on how to run a government, how to run a corporation, how to run an NGO. It applies, it's an approach, an ethic approach to problem solving. And it also, as much as the term sustainable development goes, needs another way of explaining it. I think the term sustainable development goal is off-putting. It's very difficult. Nobody really understands what it means, the term development, yes, but everything is not. So I think a lot of hard work will still have to go into not just identifying the goals, trimming them down to a number that's acceptable. Exactly, and then pick the right language for it. And currently, the member states, the 193 countries and their experts are trying to kind of distill those goals. They will present them, hopefully, around the time of the General Assembly, the Secretary in September. The Secretary General will respond to them and then a year-long process sets in to eventually determine which ones of these goals will make it to a new group of goals based on the original eight millennium development. Now, I know you're Austrian, but it makes me recall Bismarck, who was German, talking about if you wanted to see legislation, it's like watching sausage being made. This sounds like the mother of all sausage-making machines trying to get the 10 or 12 goals and I'm trying to get my brain around what that process will look like. And I understand it's supposed to be a massive, just getting through the high-level panel process, there was something like, they reached out to a million different people, there was a, the consultation was sort of, it was almost hyper, Uber consultation. How in your mind do you imagine the UN system distilling or boiling down a million comments or 190? I mean, maybe this is what you guys do on a daily basis, but how do you distill, how are you gonna distill, how's that process gonna work to distill? Everybody's pet rock if to use an American expression about it. Well, so I talked to the Canadians, they said, we want child, we're gonna fight for child marriage and we're gonna fight for mother to child health. The Brits have said we want governance. Everybody, I'm not sure where the United States is at, I haven't asked yet, but the point is, everyone's gonna show up with a pet rock, so how are you gonna manage that? That's a long way of me asking, how are you gonna manage that process? Just talk a little bit more about that. I had a closer look at the Millennium Development Goals and how they came along and how they came about in the first place. And the processes were much longer than the ones now. And now in hindsight, we've seen, we may have, and we should have probably started much earlier in terms of approaching those goals in a concerted effort, and we did eventually in the year 2000. And the same will definitely be true also for the next group of goals. We should have probably started long time ago in pursuing them. This is not going to happen, it will go through the motions. You made the right reference to the effort of bringing in the public and bringing in those people who are interested in those goals and let them participate in the conversation, not just through the so-called My World campaign, which was an opportunity online to express your support for any new additional goal, but also in other forms. For example, we did a project jointly at Central Park with an Australian group of organizers called the Global Citizen Project. They organized the concert at Central Park, but all those 75,000 in the audience had to prove online that they themselves had gotten engaged actively in the promotion of one of those goals. And they had to gain certain points, and then they got a ticket free of charge and act, singers like Bono, like Alicia Keys lent their name and their voice to the cause. And eventually not just the 75,000 people on the ground listened to them and Stevie Wonder, but there were 18 million following this concert via webcast. And the idea was to lend support to some of the goals in the process of identifying those new goals. So I fear we may have to go through the motions. That is as would be a parliamentary process up on Capitol Hill. There is a committee, there is a subcommittee, there's the House, there's the Senate, and there is some way of reconciling the two pieces and then there's a president who needs to sign it. So in the end, this institution may have a slightly different name at the UN, but they are there. Just let me just say one last thing and we'll open it up. My sense is that the MDGs, the Millennium Goals, I think were an excellent shorthand, and an excellent organizing shorthand as well for thinking about some of the global problems that we face. So I do think it's a worthwhile process. I also think to the extent that certain goals are put out there, it does lend additional force to how some donors and how host country governments will think about where they put their people time and money because of the conversation we were having earlier about the power of the brand and the power of the imprimatur that the UN has. So it's in the US interest to lead and be proactive on them, going back to some of the comments you were making earlier about sovereignty. My view is we ought to be shaping those rules as much as possible because we're gonna live with them for 20 years after the fact. So it's in the US interest to be engaging on them. So this is great. I'm gonna, we could go on for hours, but I wanna open up the conversation to, so we're gonna do this as I'll describe this as World Bank style, not UN style. So I'm gonna collect three or four comments or questions from the audience so that Peter can respond to them. And if we have time, we'll do a couple more. But if you can say your name, your organization and make your comment or question in the form of a brief comment or question, then I think we'll have time for various folks. So, oh, right. Oh, yep. So who wants to ask a question? If not, okay, yep. And then go ahead and just. Carol, can you hear me? Yeah, Carol Grigsby, Grigsby Global Consulting. One thing that you didn't mention in respect to the high level panel was their injunction right up front to leave no one behind. And that is sort of an overarching concern that they've put out there, referring to groups with disabilities, other marginalized groups, ethnic groups, so what have you? I just wondered whether you have any observations about how the working group is going about trying to incorporate that, which can be a very difficult, but necessary goal to achieve. Thanks. Let me get a couple more. Yes. Thanks very much, Dan, and thank you for the terrific discussion. My name's Lisa Cardi. I'm the director of the UN AIDS office here in Washington and just a very brief comment and then a question. I think the comment just goes back to the convergence of kind of US and UN interests, and I would just reinforce the point that I think the technical agencies that do so much of the humanitarian work, there is really, I think, a very strong synergy there between a lot of US international strategic goals and the work of the United Nations system, and we don't, I think, often talk about that in a clear enough kind of way. You started to sort of tick off where some of those synergies are, but I think actually there's quite a comprehensive list of them that we shouldn't really be shy about speaking about. The second point I would just make is just to reinforce, I think, the point Dania made around plain English and the need for whatever this next iteration of goals is to be understandable and compelling. I think that just needs to sort of frame everything else that's out there. And the third thing is actually really, it's just a question. My own recollection of the MDG process is that there was a lot of process, but at the end of the day, it was a political process that sort of got us over the finish line. And if you're able to comment a little bit on what you think the political risks are as we get to the end game of this, like a year from now, eight months from now, and where you think US interests might lie and where the UN might need the US's help in navigating some of those political challenges. Thanks. There was somebody else over here. Steve, if you just push the microphone. Use your finger on the challenges we have. On a lot of the challenges we have in doing this, there's been a lot of consultation here in the Washington area and across the country. And two of the key issues I'd like to have you comment on, you touched on universality or the opportunity to have this set of goals or whatever they become, apply to everyone and have the opportunity for everyone to participate. That's a big challenge and one which is going to have a big uphill political battle here, but one which I personally hope that there'll be a good dialogue. And I'm interested to hear what you're finding is the opportunity. You have dialogue with the emerging economies and with the established economies to see these applied to them, which gets back to, I think, the heart, just like leave no one behind. The other key issue is the issues of inequity that results from significant growth, economic growth, but it hasn't been much equity. And I think the underlying challenge for any of these goals to succeed together will be harnessing that, maybe with the business sector, maybe with this new mandate of interest. Talk about that and how you see that as a key goal to focus on and what you've experienced so far in talking to people is to bring that about. Nicole Golden. Talked a lot about the engagement process and I want to commend you and the Secretary General for the outreach that has been done as part of the process to young people in particular. It's a group that hasn't come up, but it was really, I think, a demonstration of a commitment to young people. That being said, I've often made the point about the process being different than the ultimate product. So sort of the question slash comment and relates to the leave no one left behind, the universality, the equity question is, to what extent is the reliance on the goals themselves and or the thought being put into the targets that will be sort of under those goals and where is the disaggregation and how is that playing into it? And do you think to Dan's comment about, is there going to be a governance goal? I'd be curious your thoughts on, is there going to be a youth goal and or how do you think young people and youth will be included as sort of, subjects of the actual new goals? Okay, those are quite a wide ranging and interesting set of questions for you. Thanks very much. I'm trying to tie it together and leave no one behind comments of Carol if I may say so and Steve universality. In such a way that we are facing and maybe that is felt stronger in the context of United Nations than beyond and increasing North-South divide, which means that the level of cooperation between the North and the South is diminishing while at the same time the challenges that we are facing become even more ever more global. And I think the process that we are going through right now should be seen as an opportunity to overcome this divide and by making those goals universally relevant and not leave anyone behind in an ideal scenario could make a contribution to overcoming this divide. If I wished I knew that it would be a success would be happy to share it with you. I don't know, but I'm aware that the Secretary General and other senior colleagues at the UN strongly believe that that is also one of the opportunities arising out of this debate and while we believe it is worthwhile going through the motions and even allowing it more time to be able to make that contribution. So I think that is least is the view that is currently prevailing. Whether leaving no one behind will be included as a specific goal, quite honestly, I don't know. It is true that in terms of sheer quantity of member states that there's a very strong feeling that it should be, but whether it will be at this stage I cannot unfortunately not say. Lisa, if I may say so, made a reference to the kind of synergies between US and United Nations. I think that is something in the way we present ourselves in the United States with the help of UNAs and other partners like the Foundation and through our UN Information Center, Rodney and his team. I think we would have to put even more emphasis than we may have done in the past. Yes, you I think rightly made the point that we should make an effort to make those new goals understandable and compelling. With regard to the political process and the risks involved at the end of the game is I think the US could play an essential role in taking the lead on bridging the divide that I started to talk about between North and South. And I think it, I mean, I'm aware that this is maybe not something that is extremely popular here in the US, but I think it would help not just to generate those goals. Those goals are just one element in the process, but I think it would help the international community to rally around those goals in a different and more active way than without that US leadership. Steve, you talked about inequity resulting from uneven economic growth and how that may play out in this conversation about. Is that the economic growth aspect? Yeah, but uneven, yeah, yeah. I mean, quite honestly, that too is a reflection on the divide of the international community on this North-South divide that I touched upon. And I mean, unless we will not be able to overcome the uneven growth if we don't take the attitude of wanting to overcome the divide in the first place. And there again, the US leadership would be very essential in that context. Now, Nicole, you spoke about the outreach to young people as many of you may know. The Secretary General has recently appointed the first ever envoy on youth. The idea of having someone on his side who is 29 years old, he's a 29-year-old Jordanian who I think has the skills, and some of you might have met him, hopefully would agree the skills of being young while at the same time serious enough on the issues is meant to try and bring together initiatives around the world that already exist without reinventing new initiatives that would really benefit young people. That means what can we do jointly to overcome youth unemployment? And what can we do jointly in order to improve access to education for young people? And not just the initiative by the Secretary General Education First, putting those 57 million children today, boys and girls that haven't had a chance to spend a single day in school, but providing access to better education to many others. So I think youth will remain from the UN's point of view an absolute priority, whether youth would eventually come out as an individual goal or as something that should be kept in mind with any of the goals that will come out of the process is an open question. Let me just comment on a couple of things. Lisa, I agree with you. I actually think we are net beneficiaries. United States is a net beneficiary. I do think though that I do think that the case has to be made on and there has to be some education. So I think you put your finger on something very important. My view is that most of the support for the United Nations often, how do I put this in a subtle and nuanced way, doesn't look like the Republican National Committee, I think is how I'd put it. And so I think there needs to be some more sophisticated outreach to Republicans, frankly on this. So I think that's something else I think that continues to need some work. Because I do think if you make the case, my argument would be is 95% of what the UN does is in our benefit or harmless. There's 5% of the stuff I've got an issue with. I won't list them all here, what maybe some of my complaints are. But I think 95% of a loaf is pretty good in my book. And if that's where I'm at, I'm sure there are other people that may have other complaints. But I think that's a very high percentage of value that we're getting. And I think many of the points that Peter, that you were making about, if we didn't invent, and this is something Ed Fox who's here who was saying earlier in the pre-game meeting that we were having, if we didn't, so we'd have to invent the UN if it didn't exist. The United States and other powers would have to invent it because it's a very useful platform for many of the collective action problems that we face. Could you just talk, Peter, about this issue of universality? When I was in Canada yesterday, this wasn't an official Canadian position, but I talked to some of the, I mean, it's a center-right government and there were some grousing among some of the advisors to the Foreign Minister. What is this universality crap? I don't think that was the term they used, but it was something about what does this mean? Are you gonna tell us, is the UN gonna tell us what to do? And so could you talk a little bit about what this universality thing means? Because I think we're maybe, I think there's some, I suspect it comes back to the sovereignty conversation we're having earlier. Second, could you talk about the role, I've heard some grumpiness from some foundations, not the biggest ones, but some medium-sized ones, and maybe it's because they weren't, their person wasn't included in the high-level panel on eminent persons, or about the philanthropy world wasn't included enough, I get whatever that means, in some kind of process. You talk about where you see philanthropy playing a role, and then finally, I've seen several op-eds from business leaders and we just did this big event on the role of the private sector and the MDGs. Can you talk about, from your perspective, from sort of the Secretary-General's leadership perspective, can you talk about how you see the role of the private sector in sort of solving these goals, so if you could touch on some of those issues if you would please. As we got to the last point, the private sector, not just through the global compact, but far beyond, I think there's a realization that all these goals cannot be pursued successfully without the private sector, and I think in that case, to the United States, given the importance it attaches to the private sector and to solving problems through the private sector, I think it's a very essential partner to support the Secretary-General. I don't think if we'd had this conversation 25 years ago, that I'd have asked you that question, or you'd have said that answer. So I think we're in a very different world than 25 years ago. I think some of it is because of the global compact, it's some of it's because of the change in globalization. I agree with you, but I think it's very interesting if we'd had this discussion even 15 years ago, I bet if you go back and looking at the formulation of the MDGs, that would not have been part of sort of the talking points, if you will. There were probably two reasons for that. The one reason is that member states are very suspicious or often suspicious of us as UN as an institution reaching out behind their government. For a rougative of interacting directly with NGOs, with the private sector, with the academic community, without consultation, without prior consultation. And I think that is something that keeps coming up as a sensitive issue in some of the cases and in some of the forms of cooperation. The second element is, and just to confirm what you just said, is the close cooperation that exists now between the World Bank and the United Nations or the United Nations and the World Bank. It may be partly rooted in the fact that there's two gentlemen of Korean origin getting along very well, but it may also have to do that while the bank may want to lend itself a more human face, UN would like to lend itself a more business-like face and a more competent, in terms of business-competent appearance. And I think the Secretary General and the President of the World Bank have undertaken two trips recently, jointly to the Great Lakes region and to the Sahel region and will probably go on a third trip shortly back to Africa. And I think that joint commitment has helped to create synergies that hadn't existed and the same synergies apply to the cooperation with the private sector. On philanthropy, the Secretary General recently held the first ever summit meeting of a philanthropist worldwide. He hosted the Worldwide Gathering of Philanthropists to basically present them with our case and challenge them to work more closely and more directly with the United Nations. I mean, there are a couple of names, all of you, know them who are already doing that. Whether it's the Gates Foundation, whether it's others. But that was a real pitch by the Secretary General to the philanthropic community to get behind the UN's efforts and maybe also to harmonize the efforts and to complement the efforts better than that may have been the case rather than go out there and everyone does it on his or her own. On the first point regarding universality and the experience that you had in Canada recently, I get at the approach to achieve universality with the new goals is partly driven by the fact that these new goals will also have root causes in the Northern Hemisphere. I mean, look at an issue like urban poverty. Urban poverty in the Northern Hemisphere is a real big issue by now. We may not want to see it, we may not want to recognize it, but if you look at the sheer numbers of people that are perceived as being poor in the Northern Hemisphere is growing rapidly and has grown over the last many, many years. And that applies in a similar way to the other goals that unless the North takes its responsibility, nothing will change in the South and that eventually will affect the North. So bottom line is it's less the issue of universality, it's more the issue of interdependence that is at the root cause of this universality approach. And I think that takes us back to your very first question, how why should UN be relevant in a country like the United States? It is relevant because what is happening in another part of the world becomes and will be relevant to what's happening in the United States. Well, you've been very generous with your time and I appreciate everybody sticking around and went a little bit into overtime, but I think the fact that you all stayed, I think speaks to the interest that you all have and in the topic. Please joining me in thanking Peter for spending so much time with us today. Thank you.


The group of seven foreign ministers meeting in London was hit by a COVID-19 scare on Wednesday, when India's foreign minister and his entire team said they were self-isolating after two delegation members tested positive. Foreign dignitaries meeting for a major diplomatic conference in London this week have been hit with a COVID scare after two members of India's delegation tested positive. The group of seven or G7 conference is the first such event in two years. Now, India's foreign minister and his entire team say they're self-isolating. British rules require a 10-day self-isolation period. India, which is currently undergoing the world's worst surge in COVID-19 cases, is attending the G7 as a guest and has been due to take part in meetings on Tuesday evening and throughout Wednesday. India's foreign minister took to Twitter saying he will conduct his meetings virtually as a measure of abundant caution. Britain is hosting the three-day meeting, which has been heavily billed as a chance to restart face-to-face diplomacy and an opportunity for the West to show a united front against threats from China and Russia. The meeting is a precursor to the main G7 summit due to take place at a rural English resort in June with US President Joe Biden and other world leaders set to attend. Updates