Good morning, all. OK, it is morning, but I'm not even on this time zone. Some of you have been here a while. Good morning. Thank you. All right, so I get to talk about the history of Kubernetes and the history of the Cloud Native Compute Foundation. Now, Chris gave some of the perspective from the Cloud Native Compute Foundation perspective. I am going to give a little bit of it from the Kubernetes perspective and from Google's perspective, interestingly. So first, we're going to go back in time. In 2014 and 2015, Google and a broad number of industry partners brought together what was to be the next evolution of Borg and Omega, the internal container orchestration systems that Google had built and used for years. And they brought forward this idea of Kubernetes. We had a huge cross-industry collaboration. We had Intel. We had CoreOS. We had Samsung. We had Red Hat. We had Google all contributing to this project to bring forward the idea of what CoreOS calls GIFI, Google Infrastructure for Everyone. This project was launched in 2015 with a 1.0 of announcement at OSCON. And all seven of the four founders of the industry had industry-changing vision for Kubernetes. OK, that's a joke. I know it's morning. Anyway, thank you. So all of the founders, all of the people who were broadly interested in Kubernetes had this vision that it was going to change the industry. We were going to take the concept of portable workloads and move it from VMs or software, because Java, of course, had that portable workload vision for a long time. But we were trying to take that portable workload vision and move it to containers. But there was a problem in this. There was a problem in making this transition. And that was that it was Kubernetes by Google. Now, I was brought into the project, in fact, to help make this shift from a company-led project to a community-led project. So the by Google line on this logo, which was the logo that it launched with in 2015, really was a challenge. I got lots and lots of conversations started with, here's the Wikipedia page of all the projects Google has killed, why would I bother? We all mourn Google Reader. That said, bringing together a broad industry group to change the conversation about cloud computing, to move the concepts from talking about VMs or talking about sticky services in clouds to having a portable workload unit of containers was really going to be a thing that took corporate independence for the open source project. And the Linux Foundation is known for bringing together all of these groups, all of these companies, to move forward the actual industry changing big picture visions. So as we brought Kubernetes out at 1.0 in 2015, we knew and announced that this needed to be a foundation. As Chris mentioned, it wasn't really started until December or so of 2015, but with the announcement of 1.0 came the intent that Google was going to donate all of the IP, all of the trademark, and all of the content around Kubernetes to a foundation, which then became the Cloud Native Compute Foundation. So this Cloud Native Compute Foundation was set as a governing body that had a bigger vision than just Kubernetes. We really wanted it to be, again, industry changing. So we set a three-model government. Yes, many of us are from the US. And for all of the joys and flaws of our government, the three models are actually pretty good. So we have a governing board, a technical oversight board, and an end user board offering checks and balances to one another. And so we began the CNCF. As I said, we didn't want this to be just the Kubernetes Foundation. We thought that that would be very narrow and very limiting. And that we really wanted to have this broader conversation. And I have to say, great thanks, Billinix Foundation, the Cloud Native Compute Foundation staff, Chris, Dan, everyone who's been working on this, and the technical oversight committee specifically for taking us from the one project, Kubernetes, inside the Cloud Native Compute Foundation, to the 14 that are there today, broadly addressing the whole stack that that landscape diagram showed us earlier, from network to tracing to instrumentation to the containers that exist under the container standards that exist under orchestration or around orchestration and under this portable workload unit and all of the other pieces around Kubernetes and more broadly, the container native narrative. But I'm really here to talk more specifically about Kubernetes, because taking Kubernetes from a company-led project to a community-led project has brought us a lot of interesting points to think about and work through. So this has been a two-year journey that I'm going to summarize in another 13 minutes. Forgive me if I gloss over some of the finer points. One of the things we learned was self-organization works really well in small groups. Kubernetes has enjoyed huge growth in the last two years. And what worked early on doesn't now. At this point, Kubernetes, as the size of the project, dwarfs all the other projects inside the Cloud Native Compute Foundation as a single project. But one of the tenets of the Cloud Native Compute Foundation is that each project is self-governing. And so what we are learning inside Kubernetes may or may not be adopted by other projects, but they will adopt it as they need it. So self-organization doesn't work very well for large groups. Early on, we used handraisers, people who volunteered to lead different special interest groups, to do a lot of the work that was needed in order to bring the project together. And those handraisers in small groups have a lot of trust. You have a small group, you know each other, even if you don't know this person exactly, someone else that you know knows that person in. So you have commutative trust in a small group in a way you just can't in a large group. So these handraisers generally had the skills that they needed. If they didn't, they were supported by people around them. But as the project grew, the handraising got more complicated, because there was status attached to different roles. There was status attached to being part of the Kubernetes project, and it became more politicized. So different cultural standards that we had, including chopping, wooden, carrying, water, making sure that everyone was working on the core and the important pieces, the boring pieces, I would argue, of the work that needs to be done. Those cultural norms got lost, and that made for some challenges in the last couple of years. It's one of those things that we saw and have seen happen in other projects, where the core doesn't get the attention that it needs, because the edges are more interesting to, say, a vendor community, or the edges are more interesting to a politicized community. So this chopping, wooden, carrying, water is a cultural value for Kubernetes, needs to be better communicated, and needs to continue to be rewarded. One of the other things that we found was implicit government generates mistrust. So it's really simple if you say, this is the deciding person. Linux is great. Linux has Linus, and whenever there might actually be a huge dispute, or a small dispute, but with people who can't come together and come to a solution, as the last resort, Linus can decide. That didn't work for Kubernetes. It sort of worked for a while. We didn't want it to be a benevolent dictatorship, but it was sort of a corporate dictatorship for a while. But then we said, no, we really want it not to be Google-led. We want this to be community-led. But then it sort of was like, well, who can really make decisions? And so it started to look like this weird, shadowy cabal, those seven of the four founders. Maybe one of them could make a decision, but if they disagreed, who would actually decide in the end? And we found that this really led to lots and lots of confusion for our end users, or our end contributors. I'm sorry. Someone would ask, how do we make this decision? The answer was, oh, I don't know. Maybe you should talk to Brian. Well, maybe Tim will have an opinion. Or you'd get 100 comments into a proposal on GitHub, and someone would go, oh, you know who should weigh in on this, just as you thought you were getting to a resolution. So this implicit governance really led to a lot of mistrust and led to a lot of churn and discomfort. So while we were working and we were moving the project forward, even at the crazy velocity that it was moving, there was a lot of wasted cycles in this discomfort. And so we have spent a lot of this last two years trying to solve this. Another thing we learned is people are messy. So I would argue that, let's see, what is the running joke? Three different hard problems in technology naming things, off by one errors, maybe it's only two. I'm going to postulate that the other one is people. Because most of your challenges in a tech organization don't ultimately come down to the tech. They come down to the people involved with them. So we've built this massive platform to enable distributed compute workloads. And so we tried very hard in order to build this and not fall victim to Conway's law to make a distributed decision-making system inside Kubernetes. We built out special interest groups. We built out autonomous working groups. We built out groups that then should have the permission and the accountability to make decisions on their own about their area of code and then work with other area owners and make decisions that are correct for the project at a technical level. The problem is people. Someone wanted a less, not someone, some several ones, wanted more direct authority. They wanted to know that they were supported in this, as opposed to organically growing these special interest groups who had leaders and should be making decisions independently. But there was some level of need for blessing from a broader project group. And so even when someone was a special interest group lead, there wasn't necessarily clear trust from some of the people who were in the special interest group that that person would have the right skills and comfort from the person who was leading about making the decision, be it driven collaboratively or not. So in the middle of all of this, we found lots and lots of opportunity to grow. And the project continued to grow in spite of all of our challenges. And we continued to put out good software. It just was uncomfortable during this adventure. So ultimately we decided we really needed project governance. Now we knew that we needed it all along, but we thought we were doing it relatively well. But there was lots of room for improvement. So we started a plan, trying to figure out how to bootstrap a governance process from a group that was incredibly distributed, had lots of opinions, and no clear, anointed leadership. So the broader community got together, had a long conversation, and came up with a bootstrap governance committee. There were seven of us who sat on that committee with a single explicit need. We need to figure out how to get to the first body that can help us make governance decisions, because we are not the right body all by ourselves. And this was a group that was roughly several of the founders and a few of the people who had joined to participate in the community later. So this group wrote a steering committee charter and built out a model for the first election and a transition model for the governance. So this bootstrap steering committee worked with the broader Kubernetes community to elect additional members and have a large group for the first two years, because we expect this to be a lot of work building out the rest of the governance for this project. So we will have 13 people on this group for the next two years, and then it will drop back to Kubernetes' favorite number of seven. So in this steering committee charter, one of the things that was explicitly called out was we are going to screw this up. We actually, in Kubernetes, spend a lot of time on retrospectives focusing on what we've done, what we've done right, what we've done wrong, and how we can learn from it. And that, I think, as a cultural underpinning is a huge and important point. Another thing that we spend a lot of time on and a lot of effort on is trying to bring together and grow that community, bring together and teach and share our experiences in order to make sure that we are growing the next generation of leadership. That is actually part of how this steering committee has been formed. The longstanding founders of the project, longstanding contributors as part of the Bootstrap Steering Committee, ended up, or the Bootstrap Governance Committee, ended up sitting and participating in the first two years of the steering committee in order to bring another six people together to think about things in a very similar way. So this transition of knowledge, this transition of culture is huge. We continue to see Kubernetes grow madly. I love this graph because it actually shows two things that I think are hysterical around this, one of which is yay, launch, big spike there. But also, that we as a group tend to take the end of the year off. So we continue to see huge growth and investment in Kubernetes. As Chris showed in the slides about the CNCF, there are more than 140 members now looking at this broader cloud native compute vision. Kubernetes is simply a piece of this. And we really, really hope that our vision of a learning organization, a growing organization, and an organization that allows for high trust at edges and intersections of both our independent group software, group areas of focus, as well as the edges of the Kubernetes ecosystem are a great way for us to continue to build a composable internet and also to change the model of cloud computing, so that it is more of a container orchestrated workload as opposed to focusing on VMs or other hardware-based systems. But this container orchestration allows us to work across multiple clouds, across hybrid clouds, and also to bring this workload system across all of our industries. So functionally, we see our future as very bright and that this Kubernetes governance, looking at the high trust, building a community that works well together and making sure that the governance that we have is right for our communities is super important. Thank you.


from the Bellagio Hotel in Las Vegas. It's theCUBE covering UiPath. Forward 4, brought to you by UiPath. Welcome back to theCUBE's coverage of UiPaths. Forward 4, big customer event. You know, this company has always bucked the trend and they're doing it again. They're having a live event, physical event. There are customers here, partners, technologists. I'm here with Lisa Martin, my co-host for the show. And we're going to talk about testing. It's a new market for UiPath. Anybody who knows anything about testing, it's kind of this mundane, repetitive process, ripe for automation. Gaird Vyshar is here, the senior vice president of testing products at UiPath. And Matt Holista, who's the product marketing lead at UiPath. Gents, welcome to theCUBE. Thanks for coming on. Thanks for having us. Thanks for having us, yeah. All right, Gaird, explain to us how you guys think about testing, both from an internal perspective and how you're going to market. Yeah, well, testing has been around for a long time. 25 years or so. When I came to UiPath, the first thing I looked at was like how do our customers test RPA? And it's quite interesting. We did a survey actually with 1500 people and 27% said that they wouldn't test at all. And I thought that's really interesting. RPA is a business critical software that runs in your production environment and you probably have to test. So we came up with this idea that we create the test suite. We're using proven technology from UiPath and we built this offering and brought this into market for RPA testing and for application testing. So we do both. And of course, we use it internally as well.  So we do that as well. Yeah, well, think about it. If you automate, if there's an ROI to automate a process there's got to be an ROI to verify that it's going to work before it goes into production too. And so it's amazing that a lot of companies are not doing this and they're doing it manually today. So, but parts of testing have been automated, haven't they? With regression testing. So can you guys take us through kind of the before and after and how you're approaching it versus the traditional way? Yeah, absolutely. I mean, like I said, testing is not new, right? But still, when you look at the customers they're not automating more than I would say 30, 40% of the manual tests. So still a lot is done manually, which I think, and we talked about this, right? Manual testing is the original RPA. It's a tedious, repetitive task that you should not do manually, right? And so what we're trying to bring in is now we're talking about this new role. It's called the digital tester. The digital tester is an empowered, we could call a manual tester who's able to build automation. And we believe that this will truly increase the automation even in the existing testing market. And it's going to be, I don't want to use the word game changer, but it's going to change the way testing is done. Yeah, and we're applying all the capabilities of UiPath and delivering those to testers, just like we would for HR team or a finance and accounting team, but testing that even has, they understand this more. They've been doing this for 20 years. They understand automation. We're going to give them things like process mining so they can figure out what tests they need to run from production data. We're going to give them task mining so they can make more human-like tests, test exactly like I used to be a tester and I ran a test team. And what I used to do is I have to go out to a warehouse and I would have to go watch people as they entered orders to make sure I was testing it the right way. So they would like click, we usually thought they were clicking things, but they were using hotkeys. That's just an example of what they were doing. But now we can do task mining to get that remotely, pull that data in and do tests and make more realistic tests. There's so much potential there. I think you were saying that only 27% are actually doing testing, so there's so much opportunity. I'm curious, where are your conversations within the customer organization? We know that automation is a board-level investor topic. Where are those discussions with the testing folks, the RPA folks, helping them come together? Well, that's interesting the question. We typically on the RPA side, we talk to the COEs, the people that are professionally developing those RPAs, but very easily we get introduced to the test side of the house and then usually there's a joint meeting where the test people are there, the RPA people are there, and that's why we are talking about this is going to converge somehow, right? They are in different departments today, but if you think about it, five years down the road, maybe 10 years, they might be an automation discipline for the entire enterprise. So if that answered your question about it. Yes, and it's going to require a cultural shift. Yeah, and we have a customer coming, presenting this afternoon Chipotle, and they're going to be talking about how they, both of the teams are using it, test teams and the RPA teams, and they've built a reusable component library that, so when the RPA team built their automations, they put them in a reusable library, and the test team is able to create their tests much faster, reusing about 70% of the components. And so when you think of automation, they're thinking about automating the application, not automating a process or a test, so that people can use those like Lego blocks and build it if they're doing, so they can even IT automation if they wanted to start doing IT automation, they could pull those components out and use those. Well, I think this is game-changing as quality, because so often, because in this day and age of Agile, it's like move fast and break things. A lot of things break, and we heard this morning in the keynotes how you guys are pushing code like a couple times a week, I mean it's just a constant, and then you do two big releases, okay, I get it for the on-prem, but when you're pushing code that fast, you don't have time to test everything. There's a lot of stuff that's unknown, and so to the extent that you can compress all those check boxes, now I can focus on the really important things that sometimes are architectural. How do you expect applying RPA to testing is going to affect quality, or maybe you got some examples Chipotle you just mentioned? Well, first of all, I mean when you say we're pushing code like bi-weekly or so, right, we're talking about continuous development, that's what it's called, right? It's Agile, you have sprint cycles, you continue to bring new code, new code, new code, and you test all the increments with it. So it's not that you're building up a huge backlog for the testing. On the RPA side, what I see is that there will be a transformation about the process, how they develop RPA. At the moment it's still done very much, I would say in a waterfallish way, would you agree? Yeah, big bang waterfall. Yeah, it will transition. We already have partners that apply Agile methodologies to their actually RPA development. And that's going to change that. Okay, so it's not, it's quality for those that aren't in testing, obviously, but for the waterfall guys, it's compressing the time to value. Oh yeah. That's going to be the big key. That's really where it's going to go. I mean what he said is Chipotle was able to reuse 70% of the automation components, right? That's huge, I mean you have to think about it. 70% can be reused from testing to RPA and vice versa. That's a huge acceleration also on the RPA side. You can automate more processes faster if you have components that you can trust. So you were a tester. Yeah. So you were a cost center. Yes, exactly. Yeah. And that's the budget. So could you think RPA and automation can flip that mindset? Yeah, totally. And that's one of the things we want to do is we want to turn testing from a cost center to a value center, give testers a new career pass even, because really testers before, all you could do is you could be a more technical, maybe become a developer, or you could be a manager, but you couldn't really become like an automation architect or a senior automation person and now we're giving them a whole different career path to go down. So it's really exciting. Talk more about that, Matt, because I know when I came out of college, I had a job offer and I wanted to be a developer, a programmer we called them back then. And the only job I could get was as a tester. And I was like, oh, this is miserable. I'm not doing this. But there's a growth path there. They were like, hey, do this for two or three years, maybe five years. I was like, forget it. I'm going into sales and marketing. But so what's the growth path today for the tester? And how do you see this changing? So you want to go, you want to take that one? No, you take it. Okay, I'll take it. You were there. So really, yeah, I mean, I did it. So really it's, I mean, we're going to be giving these guys, the testing market has been kind of not innovating for years and years and years. And so we're going to be giving these guys some new tools to make them more powerful and make even the, because testing is kind of a practice that is, like you said, you didn't like testing. I didn't like testing either, actually. I hated testing so I automated it, right? So that was the first thing I did. And so I think we're going to give these guys some new tools, some ways to grow their career, and some ways to be even better testers. But like we talked about process mining and test mining, like maybe they're testing the wrong things. Maybe they're not testing, you know, maybe, you know, they're, because there's kind of this test everything mentality, where we need to test everything in the whole release instead of like focusing in on what changed. And so I think we'll be able to help them really focus on the testing and the quality to make it more efficient as well.  So to defend the testers, right? Testers are very skilled people. Yes. Okay. They know their business, what to test and how to test in a way that nobody else knows that. That's something we sometimes underestimate. They're not developers, so they don't write code and they don't build automations typically. But if we can equip them with tools that they can build automation, you have the brain and the muscle together. You know what I mean? Like you don't have to delegate the automation to some whatever team that is maybe outsourced even. You can do it in-house. And I think to some extent, that was also the story of Chipotle, right? They were insourcing again because they're building their own automation. And it saved them time because they have to do all these handoffs to the external third party to do the testing for them. And so they pulled that all in, made things much more streamlined and efficient. How is, that seems like a big cultural shift within any type of organization in any industry we're using Chipotle as an example here. How does UIPath help facilitate that cultural shift? Cause that's big and we're talking about really reducing or speeding time to value. Right, right. And it's a lot of the agile methodologies so it's kind of like we're going back in time. And we're teaching these people, the RPA community, all the things that we learned from software development. And so we're going to be applying that to this. And so all those agile mindset, the agile values, those are the things that are going to help them kind of come together. And that's one of the things that Chipotle talked about is one of the things is they had a kind of an agile mindset, a can-do attitude that pulled them together. I think one thing that will really help with changing the culture is empowering the people. If you give them the tools that they can do, they will do and that will change the culture. I don't think it can come from top down. It needs to come from within and from the people. And that's what we see also with RPA by the way, is adopted on department level and they build automations and then at some point it becomes maybe an enterprise-wide initiative. But somebody in HR had this idea and started. The other thing too is Matt, you mentioned this, you go to a third party. So years ago in the early 2000s we had a software company, we would use a company called Agilon. They were assigned, I don't know if you've ever heard of them. They're basically, we're a job shop. And we would throw our code over, they were very waterfall, throw the code over the fence. It was a black box and it was very asynchronous and it would come back weeks later and they'd say, I fixed this, fixed this. But we didn't have the analytics, we didn't have, there was no transparency. Had we had that, we would have maybe come up with new ideas or a way to improve it because we knew the product way better. And so if you can bring that in-house, now you've got much better visibility. So what analytics, are analytics a piece of this? Is that something that- Yeah, they are. So I mean, I'll give you an example, SAP systems, right? When you have SAP systems, customers apply transports like five or 10 a day. Every transport can change the system in a way that you might break the automation. We have the possibility to actually not only understand what's going on in the system with process mining, but we also have the possibility to do change impact mining. And change impact mining tells me with every transport I apply, what has changed. And we can pinpoint the test cases that you need to run. So instead of running 1,000 test cases every time, we pinpoint 50 of them and you know exactly what has changed. But that's the big change. Yeah, that's the key, right? Because a lot of times you don't know what you don't know and you're saying the machine is basically saying, focus on these areas that are going to give you the biggest, that's kind of Amdahl's law, isn't it? Focus on the areas that are going to get the most return. Yeah. This is a new business for UiPath. You guys are targeting, this is a market segment. Can you tell us more about that? Well, we joined about two years ago. It takes some time to build something, right? There was a lot of proven technology there and then we launched, I think it was in July last year, which was more like a private launch. We didn't make much noise around it and it's gaining a lot of traction. So it's several hundred customers have already jumped on their test bandwagon, if you can call this way. And yeah, this year we are pushing full speed into the testing market as well because we see the benefits that customers get when they use both. Like the story from Chipotle, there's other customers like Cisco and more. When you hear their stories, what they were able to achieve, I mean, that's a no brainer, I think, for any customer who wants to improve the automation. Yeah, and also we're taking production grade automation and giving it to the testers and we're giving them this advanced AI so they can automate things they weren't able to automate before like Citrix, virtualized machines, point of sale systems like Chipotle or any other business would have. They can automate all those things now that they couldn't do before. On a self-service. As well as everything else. And then they can also, the testing tools, they talked about fragmentation this morning. That's another problem is there's a tool for mobile, there's a tool for this, there's a tool for API. Of course, yeah. And you have all these tools, you have to learn all these languages. We're going to give them one that they can learn and use and apply to all their technologies. And it's easy to use. Yeah. That's kind of been the mantra of UiPath for a very long time, easy to use, making our P8 simple. We've got 8,000 plus customers. You mentioned a few of them. We're going to have some of them on the program this week. How do you expect, Gerd, question for you. That stat that you mentioned from that survey in the very beginning of our conversation, how do you expect that needle to move in the next year? Because we're seeing so much acceleration because of the pandemic. That's a really good question because the questions that we had in the beginning after we had the first hundred, right? The values didn't change that much. So we have now 1500 and you would assume that is pretty stable from the data. It didn't change that much. So we're still at 27% that are not testing. And that's what we see as our mission. We want to change that. No customer that has more than, I don't know, five processes in production should not like not test. That's crazy and we can help. And that's our mission. So but the data is not changing. That's the interesting part. And I know we're out of time, but how do you price this? Is it a subscription? Is it a usage-based model? How do you do it market? It's fully included in the UiPass tool suite. So it means it's on the cloud and on-prem. The pricing is the same. We are using... It's there. It is, yeah. It's the same components. Like we're using studio for automation. We're using orchestrator. We're using robots. We have cloud test manager, on-prem test manager. It's just a part of the... So it's a value add that you're putting into the platform. Yeah, yeah. Exactly. Yeah, there are components at a price, yes. But I mean, it's part of the platform, how it is delivered. Yeah, but it's a module. So I pay for that module and you turn it on and I can use it. So it's a subscription. It is. So it could be an annual turnaround. If I want multi-year turnaround, I can do that. Exactly, great. Guys, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. Thanks for having me. I'm sure it was good luck with this. Thank you. Great innovations. Okay, keep it right there. Dave Vellante for Lisa Martin. We'll be back with our coverage of UiPath Forward 4 from the Bellagio in Las Vegas. Keep it right there.


Good afternoon everyone, this is Melissa with the stockswish.com and welcome. I just thought I'd do a market review here today, the QQQs. Very, very bullish day in the market, not a surprise given the way that we closed into the close on Friday, really called the market extremely well Friday and this was tough. Let's go back to Friday first, let me talk about today. So here was Friday and at the time that the market opened on Friday, I said to everyone, this looks like it's bearish but it's not and we're going to hold. Either we're going to hold immediately, I said, which we didn't do or we're going to fake, lower, hold and be a fake out and I warned everyone that it's going to be a challenging day to trade for traders unless you really have something specific to do, intraday to trade. Anyways, the market did exactly that, came in, faked, lower, was not real, held, held exactly down here, again this is an area, this is an area that it held and when I soon as I saw this happen, I said this is a low the day in the market and it was, then the market rallied up, made a new high but came in here and everyone was saying it's back down the low and I said no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, it's going to hold and it didn't even really come back down the low, just barely retested it. This was a buy set up in the 15-minute chart and the market made a new high and when the market does something like this and makes a new high into 12 o'clock major reversal time into 12 30, this is real, this is actually real. So then the market came in, you could have gone along the market Friday afternoon on low volume and the market rallied a many new high again on Friday and knew the market would gap up today, didn't know the size of the gap today, didn't exactly know the gap up today was going to be sizable because this is actually a sizable gap up, the market could have gapped up here, the market could have gap, neutral could have gapped up a little teeny weeny bit and the market actually closed on Friday at 86 80 and open today at 87 30, that's a fairly decent gap up here for this market, gapped up into a buy set up over the 8 period moving average, gapped up, gapped up in a bullish market, the market gapped up in a bullish market into an area of support for follow-up through which bounced on Friday at a teeny weeny little bit area which I knew was going to be a fake out and was, this is a show of strength, it was a show of strength on Friday, a confirmed show of strength today and now we're getting out of the resistance like right now in a second, this is it, we're over it, boom, so market power trying to pretty much on morning if you did not go long out of the open here today out of the gate you didn't get an entry, no entry here, look at the five-minute chart, nothing, you had to go long aggressively in the one-minute chart today to go long anything and on if you didn't you have nothing to do, okay, the market's kind of setting up like a breakout here, this is really not a perfect entry, market did get up over 88 and next target's 88, 20-ish and just follow through higher, so what's going to happen which has not happened yet, well we're probably gonna, I don't know where we're gonna close today, it's only 230, we could close above the area today or come in a little bit but we're gonna hold this, we're gonna close today looking very similar to this or close to this for the most part are slightly more bullish, tomorrow we should gap up again or neutral, actually there's nothing that we can do tomorrow to not be bullish, the only way we're gonna be bearish tomorrow is if the market has some significant gap down which just is not gonna happen, so if the market's neutral tomorrow, bullish, if the market's slightly gapping up a little bit bullish, if the market gaps up some crazy amount, still bullish, bullish, bullish, bullish, bullish is the outlook for this market, we are in an uptrend, we've actually been in a long-term uptrend all this year despite the fact that we had a deep pull that happened here from March into April, it wasn't a big deal, okay, market held and now we're gonna fall through higher and I do believe that we're gonna make new highs in this market this week, this buy is almost doing it, the queues have about three points to go to get up over the high, it's gonna happen, when that happens, actually before then, let me just look here, so people shorted this market which was not the right thing to do because the market was never topping and it's not the right to take a trade, you don't short tops as an entry and something that's against the trend, the only thing to do in this market is to ever go long and yet people shorted this, I know, people thought this was a top, I thought this was a top and then this here with a lower high, this is not an entry to go anything short, this market's very strong, it's proving itself now, if you didn't believe me back here, the confirmation is happening today and Friday, so I think around here, it's really gonna be like between 89.75ish and 90, somewhere in between here and here is where the shorts are gonna get stopped out, it's gonna happen before we hit up over the high, although some people will wait till we hit up over the high, not believing that we're gonna actually make a new high, which we will, 100% conviction we make a new high in this market and I do think we're set up to do it here now this week, we're setting up to do it this week, I can't say any reason why we wouldn't do it this week, markets been waiting, waiting, waiting, pull down for a nice two month period there, trying to go higher, waiting for the buying to come in, so the buying is lifting the market today, the buying lifted the market Friday, the buying will continue and the shorts are gonna get stopped out, somewhere in between here and here where they're gonna give it all up and no one should have sure this market anyways, it's very interesting to me how often people wanna play against the trend, why? I don't know why, I really don't because they're desperate for some huge Megalodon move, the Megalodon moves do not happen going against the trend, Megalodon monster, huge, beautiful, profitable moves happen when you play the trend of stock on the market and all the stocks, and if I have time tonight and I do some videos on these things, all the ones, all the goodie goodies, Facebook, Apple, PLCN price line, Tesla, I haven't looked at that yet, today, all these ones here, I talked about it last week, Netflix, all these beautiful charts that came in while the market was coming in here, I'm gonna have, these are just such bullish charts, they're all setting up for beautiful, perfect buys. Yesterday and Friday, today, all these things are coming great entries, if you're not already in these things long, let's take a look at the Tesla here, I mean some of these charts that have just held up beautifully when the market came in, they've come into, but they're still so, so, so strong. Let's look here at Tesla, any second here now, I'll have to see it up, up. So all these things here, they're gonna scoot back around, okay, all these strong charts. Let's look at Netflix quick, Netflix today was a monster, look, look at this move here today. So very bullish market, SPY has been more bullish than the Q's all along, for some reason, but the Q's got over the number today, and I actually thought the Q's would gap up over 88. It didn't set up that way, does it matter? No, no it doesn't, I actually thought we gap up over it. Look at this, nice beautiful chart here in Netflix, Netflix making the scoop around, nice move in Netflix today, triggering a buy set up today, strong stock, look at this thing, there's nothing wrong with Netflix for all the people that thought, you know, no, it's a long, okay. So again, not sure we have any more motion in ourselves here today into the three o'clock next to reversal time into the close, but the market might. I think the market might flat line here just close like this, or flat line till three o'clock and make one more push into the close of business here today to end the day very strong, and a nice push around, and no one should have shorted this market. And for the people that are short this, what do you do? When you take a trade, then you realize that it's wrong, the best thing that you can do is just exit out of the trade. If the reason you took this trade here as a short this market was, you thought it was top, you gotta look at this now, you gotta take your blinders off here and see if for what it is. This is a show of strength. There's no other way to read this chart. It was never extended in the first place. The markets had beautiful rallies and not done anything wrong, and it had a nice pull in there in the month between March and the beginning of April. Market is higher this year, and my call for the market this year overall in 2014 is bullish. Getting into the half point way mark here of the year, and the market's gonna show what it can do here now. We may rally the rest of the year here now, actually. This might have been the biggest pull in the market sees all this year. Actually, now that I'm thinking about this, this here might be the biggest down move the market sees this whole year now, because everyone's gonna see this for what it is, and hopefully people see it today. It's strong, strong, strong, strong. This is Melissa with the stockswitch.com. If you'd like more information, there is a golden gap class this weekend. Woo! An added class this weekend. It's May 17th and 18th from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern time. If you're interested, email me. I'm Melissa at thestockswitch.com. What will you learn in that class? Well, you'll learn how to read gaps, okay? Like the bullish gap in the market today. You will learn how to read gaps in stocks. And actually, if I had, I did call the market long today, but if I had wanted to be aggressive in the market, I'll just tell you what I would have done. And again, I like to short more than I like to go long, but if I had wanted to go long today, this market, because I called that it was a buy, 9.40 reversal time, here's the long. That was the entry, and you could have actually bought it here for the stop, so it would have had to be under the low with the cushion. Pretty much here at 20, find it. So if you bought this entry here in the market, geez, Louise, it was 13 cents. Entry here in the QQQ is with 13 cents, and it ran, it's almost a dollar. So 13 cents, this is almost a two hour train here up into the close, 88, because the market should get up to 88.20-ish. Market ran up to 88.10 or 11 or something like that. This is a pretty big trade here if you did the market aggressive long today. And actually, you could have stayed through this and continued to just lower the stops and still be in it. Cause look at the 15 minute chart. Look, here it goes. Oh, here it goes. It's gonna try here in the three o'clock period. This is Melissa with TheStuckSwish.com. Have a great day, everybody. Email me and Melissa at TheStuckSwish.com if you'd like more information on the upcoming GAT class. Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.


Welcome back to our series on breaking into investment banking. In our previous video, we took a look at the different routes which are available to you if you're trying to break into investment banking given your specific circumstances. So how old you are, the type of experience you have, your background, as well as how you can best prepare to break into investment banking. So covering interview questions, resume, etc, etc. In this video, however, we are going to take a look at one specific question, which I always get. And that is, how do I break into investment banking without previous work experience? And the reality is a lot of candidates breaking into investment banking without previous work experience. And it's a lot easier than what you might think. Because although work experience is a soft requirement, it's not a hard requirement. You don't need it to break into investment banking. So in this video, we are going to take a look at who can break into investment banking without work experience, who needs work experience. And more importantly, how do you go about getting work experience easily? So before we start discussing who needs experience and those who don't need experience in order to break into investment banking, let me just take a step back and explain why you don't need work experience in order to break into investment banking or why you don't need relevant experience in order to break into investment banking. And it's no requirement for two reasons. Now the first one, some bankers may disagree with me on this, but this is just my personal experience, because I started out as an intern and then I was promoted to become a full-time analyst. And I know that the job of an intern is no way near what a full-time analyst is responsible for. So whenever you're going to go for some internship at any investment bank, whether a board bracket bank, middle market bank, boutique bank, you are not going to be in charge of any deliverables. You are not going to be in charge of building financial models. Sure, you're going to assist on it. You're not going to be in charge of building marketing materials, IMs, pitch books. You're going to assist on it. You're going to get some experience building some slides. You're not going to get exposure to handling client queries. You're not going to get exposure to anything which is major. So the reality is the only type of benefit that some interns get is just learning about the lifestyle of investment banking, learning what they're responsible for, learning about everything that you need to know to make a judgment of whether or not investment banking is for you. You're not going to get real experience. Now, I know not everyone's experience is going to be the same. Some are going to get a lot more live deal experience than others, but on average, most interns, they're just going to be assisting on deliverables. They're not going to be in charge of anything. So whenever you're interviewing with an investment banker, they know this. They know that even though you might have multiple internships in investment banking, it doesn't really mean much. It doesn't mean that you're automatically better than someone who doesn't have any work experience in investment banking. It means that you have a very good idea, a very good understanding of the investment banking lifestyle, culture and environment. But it doesn't mean that you are going to be a better investment banker than someone who doesn't already have that experience. So now let's move on to the second reason why previous investment banking experience is not a requirement. And that is every single year, we find a lot of non-finance candidates applying to investment banking and a lot of them are great in terms of meeting the seven basic requirements. Now these candidates are not from a finance background. They might have studied engineering, law, literature theory, Kim Kardashian theory, whatever they might have studied. But they're great candidates because they are high achievers, they have good grades, they participated in a lot of extracurricular activities, held leadership positions. And most importantly, they know how to pass the interviews. They know how to answer technical questions. If you answer all the questions correctly during your interviews, you are going to get the job. If you do not pass the interview, you're going to fail. You're never going to get the job. So because of that, a lot of non-finance candidates break into investment banking. So in essence, investment banking work experience is a bonus. It's a huge bonus, but it doesn't automatically make you a better candidate than someone without experience. So now let's talk about the candidates who can apply into investment banking without work experience. So for those that does not need work experience in order to break into investment banking, they are the candidates that overachieve on all seven of the basic requirements in order to break into investment banking. Now remember in my previous video where we spoke about the seven minimum requirements or the seven entry criteria? Candidates that does not need work experience are those that overachieve on every single one of them. And as a quick recap, remember that we have a track record of winning, good grades, extracurricular activities, interest in investment banking, intellectual capacity, technical knowledge and communication skills. Now what I mean by overachieving on these requirements, I don't just mean someone with a 4.0 GPA, someone that received a certificate for doing good work. I mean someone that attended an elite university, 4.0 GPA, top of his or her classes, volunteers at every single society there is, saved 70 dolphins, climbed Mount Everest, bungee jumped on the moon, whatever it may be. I mean a candidate that overachieves on everything. And those are the kind of candidates that can break into investment banking without work experience because they can justify their achievements as an equal substitution of that work experience. And like I've already mentioned, work experience, especially at some internships, they're not really that credible in terms of giving you a lot of exposure, it's more of a lifestyle understanding. So the most important thing is being able to demonstrate that you can achieve, that you have a history of achieving, that you are a candidate with the proven track record of being a good investor banker, that you have the criteria, the characteristics of good investor bankers. Those are the most important things that you need to demonstrate if you don't have previous work experience. So let's go through this. For the first one, having a track record, you need to have a clear track record of achieving. Again, attending one of the best business schools or universities in the country, winning multiple awards, multiple accolades in whatever field. Again, it doesn't have to be academic, it can be professional, it can be sports related, it can be scholarships, it can be whatever it is. But as long as you have the clear track record of achieving, grades need us to say you need to have really good grades. And I don't just mean 4.0 GPA, I mean Dean's List, top of your class, first class degree, honours and again top 10%ile of candidates. Those are the kind of grades that I'm talking about for candidates that can break into investor banking without work experience. Then extracurricular activities, and I don't just mean being a member of 500 societies, that doesn't mean anything. We need you to be in a position of leadership. We need you to be the president of the economic society, the treasury or the vice president of the investment society, or whatever it may be. The more position of leadership you have, it means that the more you can handle, the more you can juggle. Then interest in investment banking and technical knowledge, and I've grouped these two for very good reasons. When you go into investment banking, you're going to learn about the different products and services, the different divisions, the different roles and responsibilities of investment bankers, the role of a self-sale M&A versus a bar sale M&A, you learn all of this when you get work experience in investment banking. As well as for the technical knowledge, you are going to be surrounded by other investment bankers, which can coach you through how to answer these questions, as well as you getting some exposure to financial modeling. It's very important that you learn about all the different product services, responsibilities of bankers, as well as how to answer the technical questions. Regardless if you have experience or not, you are going to be tested on these. And the only way that you can get these two is by either working in investment banking for a long period of time, networking with investment bankers and having them coach you through all of this, or you can get our investment banking and recruitment guide. And we've created this to replicate 1000 hours of investment banking. It's designed to give you all the answers, advice and insights into the different products, services, roles, responsibilities, personality profiles, as well as all of the answers to the technical interview questions and behavioral questions, as well as to guide you through avoiding all the mistakes which bankers make when they first come in. And again, this is something else that as a quick note, it's one thing to break into investment banking, a whole different thing to stay into investment banking. So we also break down the common mistakes which people make and how you can avoid them, because some of these mistakes can get you fired. And we're going to show you exactly how to avoid them, or the tips and tricks which we've learned throughout our careers. And again, we have Liam, who's a VP. We also have other analysts and associates who have contributed to this guide. Then finally, with the communication. Now, communication is pretty easy. As long as you can coherently communicate and articulate yourself, that's fine. And again, these are the characteristics of candidates that can easily get an endless role, an internship without previous investment banking work experience. So now let's move on to candidates that does need work experience or those that do need work experience in order to break into investment banking. Now, I hesitate to use the word those that do need work experience, because some of these candidates can break into investment banking, but they will struggle. But I would much rather you dominate the interview processes that the recruitment cycle, then you're struggling. So if you are a candidate like this, like the one that we're about to go through, then I would highly recommend that you go out and get work experience immediately, because it will make the process so much easier. So again, these are based on the seven requirements of breaking into investment banking. The first one is having a clear track record of achieving. So if you don't have a clear track record of achieving so no scholarship, no sports awards, no awards at work, not attending an elite business school or an elite university, then that is something that we are going to start questioning you. So why didn't you go to a better school? Why didn't you perform well? Why didn't you get a scholarship? We are going to ask you a lot of questions. We are going to probe why you didn't achieve in these areas. So you need to have good answers for that. Second is grades. Now, this is a red flag. If you don't have good grades, by default it's a red flag because it means that you're not determined. It means that when the situation is not good for you, you're not going to perform well because the reality is anyone can perform well in a class which they like, with a professor which they like, in a group that they get along with. But how do they perform in a class which they don't like or with professors who they don't get along with? And in order for you to get a 4.0 GPA, a first class degree, it means that you are able to perform regardless of the situation, regardless of who you are working with, regardless of how stressed out you are, regardless of how hard the task may be. And we need someone back that can perform like that. So getting high grades is something that we look at regardless of whether you have experience or not. But nonetheless, we don't need you to have perfect grades. It's not something where you need to have a 4.0 GPA. Anything above a 3.5 or an upper second class degree in the UK, it's fine. It's acceptable as long as you can overachieve in other of the requirements. So now let's take a look at extracurricular activities. So if you are just members of a couple of societies and you didn't actually hold any position of leadership, then you are going to need to have work experience in order to demonstrate the fact that you can juggle multiple things at once. And then number four, your interest in investment banking. You are going to get questioned, why do you want to be an investment banking when you don't have experience? What attracted you to investment banking? Why should I hire you with that investment banking experience? Can you tell me the difference between a self-seleminated deal versus a bi-seleminated deal? Can you tell me what is the role of an investment banker on a roadshow, on an IPO? Can you tell me about XYZ investment banking? You have to be able to answer all of these questions without hesitation. And you will get all of these answers by working in investment banking or by networking or again with our interview guide. But you have to be able to answer why do you want to be an investment banker? Why should I choose you without investment banking experience? What is the role of an investment banker in M&A, in capital markets, in average finance? What are the different product divisions, different services areas? You have to be able to answer all those questions because those are pretty much basic questions that they're willing to ask you. Then number five, no clear proof of working under pressure. If you cannot demonstrate that you are able to perform well under pressure, then that's a red flag because your work experience would substitute as an indication that you are able to work under pressure. During your investment banking internship, you will have a lot of tasks to do and you can substitute that experience to show and to demonstrate that you are someone that can work well under pressure. So if you don't have work experience, you have to be able to demonstrate that elsewhere. Then number six, technicals. Your interviews are going to be separated in behavioral questions and technicals. So technicals, you're going to get tested on accounting, finance, valuation modeling, M&A, LBO, economics and brain teasers. You have to be able to demonstrate technical mastery in order to break into investment banking regardless of your situation. We're not going to lower the entry criteria just because you're from a non-finance background, just because you don't have investment banking experience. We're not going to lower the boundary because otherwise we are going to suffer if we take you on. We are going to have to do more work for you regardless of your background, regardless of your situation. You are going to have to answer technical questions because that's an indication of you being interested in investment banking and you going out networking with investment bankers or you learning what investment bankers do on a daily basis, learning about financial modeling, learning what it takes to create a financial model and you can demonstrate all that by being able to answer the technical part of your interviews actually. And then finally, number seven, which is the communication. And again, communication is pretty simple. As long as you're able to clearly articulate yourself in a coherent manner, then that's fine. So now let's talk about how to get work experience and internships. And before we do that, do you see that subscribe sign, that subscribe button over there? It's pretty, right? Okay, I'm going to press it. Now it's your turn. Go on down there below. And oh, do you see that bell sign? It's pretty, isn't it? Okay, now press it as well. YouTube keeps telling me that over 80% of my audience are not subscribed. And as a result, I'm not getting ranked. So help the channel get ranked and subscribe and press the bell notification sign. There are a lot more videos coming out and the only way for you to actually see them is by pressing the subscribe button and the bell button. Okay, so now to move on to getting internships and work experience. Now, arguably one of the most common emails that I get about work experience is I'm finding it difficult to get work experience because I don't have previous work experience. I completely understand I've been there and we're going to talk about how to go around that in a while. So to begin with, investment banking internships are incredibly important because almost half the people that are on summer internships do get a returning full-time offer back. So it's really important that you do try to get on these summer internships and off-cycle internships, which as I've already mentioned, it's slightly harder to get into because you're not going to get the training. So they're going to expect that you already have some level of technical proficiency. Once the level of demand for off-cycle internships are slightly lower than summer internships because off-cycle internships take place during come time and not summer time. But if you don't get on a summer internship, it's okay. There are other areas which does provide relevant experience. Now, some bankers would disagree with me on this, but in my opinion, some of these areas provide better experience than investment banking. So for example, private equity. In private equity, you're going to learn detailed financial modeling, you're going to be surrounded with excellent investment bankers. And in private equity, the type of financial modeling that you're going to do is at a higher level. It's kind of like swimming with Michael Phelps when you're in private equity. And when you come back into investment banking, you're back in the kiddie pool. So the type of experience which you can get in private equity is arguably, in my opinion, a hell of a lot better than the one that you would get in investment banking. Now that said, that's just one area. Other areas which provide similar type of experience is corporate development. Because again, private equity and corporate development are both clients of investment banking. So you can get a lot of experience in corporate development and trade finance, valuation, but then there are other areas which also has a huge overlap of skills, equity research, hedge funds, and asset management. Now, in terms of hedge fund, make sure that it's a M&A hedge fund, so Merger-Abuschholz hedge fund, a long short equity, because those types of hedge funds, which will give you a lot of financial modeling exposure, as well as a lot of the equity investments. When you are looking at asset management firms as a way to get experience for investment banking, make sure that they have a lot of financial modeling as part of their investment process. Otherwise, you're not going to get any type of transferable or relevant skills to investment banking. Now, there is something that which has to be said. When it comes to getting experience in the investment side, so hedge fund, equity research, asset management, those are great areas to learn financial modeling, but the difference is those are market based, whereas private equity, investment banking, corporate development is transaction based and investment banking is transaction based. So the type of experience which you're going to get in PE and investment banking is you're going to get a look of lifestyle exposure. So you're going to see how your managing director picks up the phone, interacts with the client, controls the expectation. You're going to see how a VP delegates between the MD and the junior bankers. You're going to see how the associate manages the analysts, the type of work which they do. You won't get that type of experience in the investment side, in asset management, in hedge funds, because again, those are market driven. You're not going to see the lifestyle of investment banking. And as I already mentioned, in my honest opinion, the whole point of getting investment banking experience or internships is more so to learn about the lifestyle than to actually get exposure of actually doing the real work. If you're not getting that lifestyle experience, it's a significant drag. But that said, equity research, hedge fund, they still provide a lot of transferable skills in terms of building financial models. But if you can get experience at a transaction related role, it's a hell of a lot better. Now for candidates that are struggling to even get an internship, to even get work experience opportunities, then what you should do is not chase after paid internships or paid work experience. Try and volunteer. A lot of candidates have broken into investment banking by first volunteering at a firm, leveraging their volunteering experience to get on an internship, then using that internship experience to get on a full time and this role. It's a proven pathway. So if you're struggling to get paid internship, paid work experience, just volunteer for three months. Now I know some students are going to be categorically against this. I can almost see the comments on my page right now. But the reality is, if you have zero experience and no one wants to pay you to work for them, the only way for YouTube to get some shred of experience on your resume is by volunteering. And if you want to get into investment banking badly enough, it's a sacrifice which you're going to have to make.  And try to make sure that you volunteer at a relevant field. So try to get experience at a M&A boutique, at a small private equity shop, at a hedge fund. Again, relevant area. The more relevant the role is, the easier it is for you to break into investment banking because you're going to learn about investment banking. So volunteering is by far an easy way to get your foot through the door if you're struggling to get anything. And in our investment banking, networking and recruitment guide, we have a database of over 10,000 investment banking boutiques which are ideal to get work experience at. So take a look at that. Now, some candidates, they discover that they want to break into investment banking maybe after they've graduated or just after they've recently graduated. So they missed out on internship application, off-cycle internship, what should they do? Now, in that case, I would recommend that you do a Masters. The whole point of a Masters isn't to actually learn more. Now, I have a Masters in Finance and Investment and a degree in Economics. The difference isn't that that steep. If anything, a Masters was just a way to just delay and from the workforce. And that's exactly the way you should view it. You should view doing a Masters as a second chance for applying into internships, off-cycle internships and getting more workplace opportunities.  That's it. That's how I view a Masters program. I don't really view it as additional knowledge which is going to be significantly better than your undergraduates. If anything, it's just a delay tactic which is going to help you to break into investment banking because it's going to allow you to get the necessary skills and work experience that you need in order to break in as well as beef up your resume if you go to a more prestigious university than your undergraduate. So in summary, candidates who overachieve on the seven requirements on the seven criteria which bankers look for in a candidate, they can pretty much break into investment banking without previous experience as long as they know how to answer technical questions and they know about all the product services roles and responsibilities of investment banking which they can easily get by networking with bankers or by reading our guide. Now, candidates who do not meet all of the requirements or who meet some but lack in others, it's preferable for you to go and get an internship and work experience in order to break into investment banking and the majority of you are in that category. Okay, so I'm just going to wrap up the video now and in our next video we are going to talk about how to break into investment banking if you're from a non-financed background and again, so join me for that. Don't forget to hit subscribe and the bell notification button to be updated and don't forget to check out other videos on this channel which we pretty much break down the interview questions and answers how to break into investment banking and various other areas which will help you to break into investment banking. So I'll see you in our next video.


Today's quick tip is one about helping your child to open up to you if you think they've got stuff on their mind and the conversation's not kind of got going. What I find to be really helpful is just to quietly do things alongside your child so rather than specifically trying to get the conversation going and you might do but if you're having limited impact with that but you get this feeling that your kid's got something on their mind just quietly be nearby whilst they're getting on with something and you're getting on with something so you might be cleaning nearby I will sometimes pick up my knitting or be doing a jigsaw or be quietly reading be doing something that shows that you're busy that you're kind of occupied but you're not uninterruptible so your child knows that you're there should they wish to start speaking to you sometimes it can take kids a while to build up the courage to start a conversation or they just need to get into the right kind of mindset or they just literally need to find the words and just being in kind of companionable doing kind of quiet silence doing things alongside can really help them to get to that point where they're ready to speak you could also do something with your child so sometimes I will knit with my child or we'll do a jigsaw together or maybe you like creating together the easiest one is to get up and go for a walk you can walk in companionable silence and then when they want to start talking then they can and that can work really well but yeah if you've got a feeling that your child has stuff on their mind hello Alfred then you do things alongside them just kind of be there ready listening allowing them to talk when they want to and you might remind your child every now and then we're always happy to listen if there's anything you want to talk about just let them know that but try to remove the pressure from the situation what we often find is when that pressure is removed that then perhaps they begin to find their voice when we sit there in that kind of interrogation okay what's on your mind I can see something wrong that can feel a bit tricky so let them know that you care that you're listening and then just quietly be there bubbling away in the background waiting ready and if they do start talking just listen take it on board try to understand ask your open questions I hope that that's helpful I would love to hear from you leave some comments tell me what kind of things do you do alongside your child in order to encourage them to get talking what things do you enjoy doing with your child together and do you have any other tips for getting kids talking when you think there's something on their mind what's worked well for you if you're finding any of my content helpful please consider giving the video a like a subscribe and a comment and maybe head over to my patreon channel and think about following me there too my patrons are the people who are going to enable me to really focus in on creating more content around supporting you to support your child this is where my true passions lie and getting a decent following there and a community there who will support me to create that content will enable me to do more of it which I hope will help all of us till next time


Welcome to this press conference on a cool and fresh and rainy tangent morning, the second day of the annual meeting of the new champions 2018. You don't see me as much. My name is Oliver Cannes. I don't do as many press conferences as I used to do, but I do my favourites. I do ask for special dispensation once in a while to come out of retirement to help announce the news that I find personally most exciting. I work for the World Economic Forum. I'm the head of media content here for the past five years. It's been one of my greatest pleasures launching what we call the emerging technologies of the year list. It's been a wonderful collaboration over these years with first the World Economic Forum's global agenda councils and now the global future councils and the World Economic Forum's expert network. I have two members of that network here to talk a little bit more about these technologies. First of all, I'm just going to go over a couple of my favourites just to get the party started. Well, who isn't going to be excited about plasmonic materials? You may not have heard of plasmonics, but they're already being used for battery development and monitoring health. They could well lead to invisibility cloaks in the not so distant future. Who knows? Lab-grown meat. Well, we all know the environmental damage and unsustainability of human appetites for meat and protein. What about if we get our protein from meat, which tastes just as good, looks like meat, has all the characteristics but is grown in a lab? Could that be a major answer to the sustainability drive our planet needs to make? Who likes the idea of arguing with your Alexa or your Siri when you wake up in the morning? It's not a matter of just being told what time it is or what weather it is, but AI is moving so fast that the machine learning technologies behind these personal digital assistants is now going to mean that in the future they'll be able to offer you advice and possibly even answer back. So, as I said before, delighted to have members of the expert network that put this list together. I'm going to invite each of them to talk a little bit about their special subjects and then we'll have some time to take questions from you and also from myself, hopefully. On my immediate left, joined again by Mariette Di Crescino, an old friend, great to see you again Mariette. It's great to see you. Thank you. Mariette is editor-in-chief of Scientific American, been with us working on this list for five years as has Andrew Maynard, Andrew your professor of the School for the Future of Innovation in Society at Arizona State University. Welcome back again, very nice to have you. And we're about to be joined and the camera will soon see our third panelist, Sania Blee, who's a distinguished professor and dean of the Korea Institute of Advanced Science and Technology in the Republic of Korea. Mariette, let's start with you. What has been different or most exciting or noteworthy about this year's list after the over the five that we've been doing it together? One of the things I love about our list every year is how they follow how human innovation is emerging itself. And so this year we're seeing AI constantly throughout the list. You mentioned a couple of favorites of mine as well. The idea of arguing with an Alexa or Siri actually has some benefit. If you think about a physician who's trying to keep up with the latest advances in technology, imagine an assistant powered by AI and machine learning who could review all of the literature, find where the patterns are that are too hard for humans to see, suggest possible diagnoses or treatment paths to the physician and maybe even have a debate or discussion with the physician to help that person make the diagnosis. So, I mean, I think AI running through the thread everywhere this year is a really big one for me. AI seems to be a huge topic and it's working its way through most of the technology sessions at this meeting as well. Is it everywhere? Are we going to be seeing AI for the years ahead? Another place we see—yes, we are. Actually, we've been seeing it for a while now, but what's happening is it's becoming a lot more sophisticated as it continues to progress. Another entry in this year's top ten list that I like a lot is advanced diagnostics for precision medicine, which are also powered by AI. Instead of finding one biomarker or a biological signal that there's a diseased happening, they find several at once and there are many panels and arrays that do this. In fact, Sange Alff would probably speak quite a bit more about it. Wonderful. And we'll go to our panelists first. I just want to go through a couple of previous emerging technologies just to give you a taste of how we like to feel with fairly on trends and ahead of the curve. In 2016, for example, we talked about blockchain and we talked about autonomous vehicles. Now, alongside AI, there are a few sessions that aren't talking about the blockchain, not just at this meeting but at our other meetings and in conferences around the world. Whenever we put out a press release, I know this for a fact, blockchain is one of the most exciting and most interested areas. A huge area of topics and nobody was really talking about it in 2016. It was in the emerging technologies list. So hopefully that's a good sign that these technologies here are going to be fairly mainstream fairly soon within a three to five year timeframe, I believe we guide. Andrew, tell me a little bit about your contribution for the list this year. So I always have a very tough spot here because my day job is trying to ask tough questions about what could go wrong with these technologies. But at the same time, I have my inner geek that gets really excited about them. So there are a couple that if I three that really stood out to me here. Marietta has just mentioned one of them, the cultured meat, the lab-grown meat, which I think is tremendously exciting. A couple of others, though, one that really excites and intrigues me and one that does worry me. The first one is augmented reality. So we've had this promise of augmented reality, the idea that we can overlay another set of digital information on what we see for a number of years now. But we're just on the cusp of this becoming reality, especially with breakthroughs such as 5G networks with phones with very powerful computing. For anybody that's experienced augmented reality with high-resolution headsets, it's utterly transformative. Where you can be immersed in an environment where you can see 3G projections that look as if they're real. So I think this is going to be incredibly transformative. The other one, which has been bubbling along for some years now but really is gaining a lot of attention, is gene drives. So this is the ability to actually modify whole species genetically. So imagine you can take mosquitos and you can genetically engineer mosquitos, not so you get rid of them, but so that they no longer carry malaria. Or you can modify locusts so they don't swarm. It's incredibly powerful, this technology, being able to engineer things so that their traits are heritable. But as you can imagine, there are an awful lot of things that might possibly go wrong with this if we don't get it right. That's why we love you being on the panel, Andrew. I know, I'm the downer. We all need a safety valve and we'll come to that as well. One of the comments that I stood out for me yesterday at this meeting was a session on dual-use technology. The fact that technology designed for civilian use can be re-engineered for military purposes. And one of the comments that really stood out and worried me a little bit was the comment from one of the panellists that the ship has sailed in terms of governance. So maybe we'll have a few questions around that. But thank you very much for joining us, Sanya. I know there's been traffic issues in Tanzania and I've been part of the forum. I do apologise for the traffic and the organisation here, but we're very, very glad you could join us. Could you please tell us a little bit about your contribution? Yeah, well actually this year's top 10 list attracts me a lot, but let me talk about maybe two or three items now. One is implantable drug-making cells.  What if you have this eyelid cell implanted in your body which responds to the level of glucose and then automatically treat your diabetes symptom? Well, that was not easy even though a lot of scientists and doctors have tried because when you capture these cells in a protective material so that they can release drugs at the right time, that causes fibrosis. So it's not going to work in your body. Recent years and very recently there have been attempts to make new material based on old known material which is known to be biocomparable and then it allows cells to release drugs without causing fibrosis problem. So this will make a significant contribution if and also if it's linked with the synthetic biology where you can engineer cells further so that very nice drugs can be actually delivered at the right spot at the right time when patients need. Another technology that drew my attention was electroceuticals. So as you know, electroceuticals by the name, it says it must be doing something with your neurological disorders because our neurons are all electric responsive. However, recent studies shown that actually neurological transmitters or neurotransmitters can be released at a desired location such as spleen which will in turn trigger release of certain chemicals that prevents inflammation for example. So that was first good demonstration that actually electrical stimuli can deliver chemicals that can suppress some bad symptoms. So I like that idea of electroceutical. Maybe if I had one more thing, AI for materials, I love that because I use that already. So artificial intelligence can be used to scan through all the known chemical reactions to design very complicated reaction steps much much faster and efficiently than humans can do. I use it for scanning drug-drug interactions. There has been about 2,159 known drugs. So if you take two drugs which you will most likely when you get older and there might be some unknown drug-drug interactions which can be damaging your body. Now using AI you can actually scan through. It's 2,159 times 2,158 divided by 2. So it's more than 230 million, sorry, 2.3 million interactions. And then now we were able to identify potentially harmful reactions that correspond to about more than 430,000. And these need to be paid attention for pharmacists and also medical doctors when they are giving drugs. And I think AI for materials will even further advance to link all these things together. Essentially what we're looking at is through the use of machine learning and artificial intelligence a huge acceleration at the speed of discovery. Absolutely. One question for me before I open it up to my friends on the floor. A lot of these technologies have been around. Electroceuticals have been around, the diagnostics for personalized medicine has been around. What's happened in 2018 to make this, get these onto your list?  But I think this year it's actually been demonstrated in a small clinical setting as well. So I think that's why now these technologies are one step closer to a real life and that's why it's selected in this year's list. For me also they've taken a leap forward. So Shakespeare said there is nothing that is new under the sun. Everything is part of a long continuum of change in human history. But in the case of, for instance, the diagnostics, we've gone from detecting single features to detecting multiple with assays that can do it all at once. And that reduces the cost, that makes things faster. In the case of electroceuticals, we're seeing a transition from invasive stimulators of the vagus nerve to non-invasive. So, again, making it less expensive, easier to use, faster to use. What's not to like about non-invasive sense of positive development? Absolutely. It does sound positive. Even Andrew likes it. Absolutely, so you'd be as intense. Let's have a quick show of hands. He's got questions. Gentleman in the front, can we get a microphone here please? Can you remind us of your name and where you're from please, sir? OK, my name is Neil from the media. And actually, my question is, you talk about a lot of advanced technologies. But I think in China, the health is a major issue. And the cancer, we say, is the top of the diseases that cost the benefits. And so what I want to know is what the advance in curing the cancer, and is there any mass, I think, treatment to the public, anything you can say about this? Thank you. A question on cancer. Let's just see if there's any other questions first. Anybody else? OK. Professor, maybe I can start. So advanced diagnostics for precision medicine can help from this year's list because cancer patients, even though they have been diagnosed with, for example, lung cancer or gastric cancer, actually they are different from person to person. So we're not going to be able to treat cancer individually specific because it's going to be too much costly. However, we can at least group subpopulations who are most likely to be responsive in a similar manner and most likely to receive the treatment and work better. That's called precision medicine. Now this year's list includes these advanced diagnostics which can classify not only biomarkers, but also pan-omic scale data that can classify patients into certain subpopulations that can immensely help treat cancer patients better than before. So that's one contribution I can say. It's a sobering thought when sometimes I believe in the US now the average age is actually declining for the first time. So we are working very, very hard to improve science. At the same time, new challenges are coming in and facing this, hitting us in the face. OK, whilst we wait for other questions, a curiosity from myself. I've been doing this list as we all have for a few years now and I look forward to it every year. There's a lot of AI this year. We've established that. There's a lot of health related technologies with established this. But one area where I've become accustomed to seeing technologies emerge is the kind of sustainability in the energy space. And my question is, why is that less of a focus this year and giving you all the ability to have a long range into the future? Do you think that we're going to see a kind of plateau off of certain technologies in certain areas of advance? Maybe research funding is going in unequal divisions across various areas. What's your take on the situation? So I don't think it's an issue of funding pulling back. I think it's just that we plateau in some areas temporarily. So if you look at the discussions around this year's list, it wasn't that there was a lack of advances in areas related to sustainability. It's just that other things really caught our attention and sparkled. But I would also say that if you think about big questions around sustainability, how do we use energy better? How do we use renewables? How do we stop looting the earth as much as we do? Many of the technologies here are directly applicable to that. So you've got to draw a line between the capability and what we can actually do with it. So for instance, AI design materials, looking at physical materials, this is where we have the ability to build much better batteries because we can discover materials that have never previously existed. So I think there is that strong connection there. It's just a little bit under the surface. And also, I mean, this is Seventh Edition of Top 10 Emerging Technology already, which means that we have already disclosed 60 different emerging technologies which cover a lot of those technologies. And one of the rules when we are selecting the list is that we're not going to list the same thing again. So even though some of those emerging technologies appeared, say, three years ago, are still important and rapidly advancing, well, that has been already covered. So it's not going to be listed again. I'm not going to test you on the 60 past and present emerging technologies. But, Maria, you're the editor-in-chief of the world's best-known science publication. It was a benefit of your vision as to other exciting areas that maybe we could be looking forward to reading about in a year's time. One of the things I always look forward to seeing is new materials advances especially. So it was very resonant with me this idea of using AI for creating new materials that Sangyapus talked about, but also the Plasmonax. So just like you were saying at the beginning of our chat that, you know, a few years ago, last year, we were talking about blockchain. It wasn't really out there. Now it's everywhere. Plasmonax, I suspect, would be one of those technologies that we start to see very routinely under a lot of different areas. For instance, they were already used as sensors. You've mentioned the fun Harry Potter idea of, you know, because these manipulating the plasmonax on the surface can deflect light, you can actually reduce the visibility of something and create a quote-unquote invisibility cloak. But there are many other advances that you can use that technology for from sensing to manipulating material in many ways. And there's a lot of money flowing in to do that. Just to see if there's any more questions. If not, I've got one to close on. It's one for Andrew. So let's go back to that governance issue. And do you agree with that comment that the ship has sailed when it comes to convening the right leadership and the right energy and ingenuity to create an environment where we can govern any negative uses and side effects of these technologies? No, I don't. And I don't because I think that that's partially just too depressing a thought. But also I think there is optimism here. If you look at these technologies, there is tremendous potential to improve people's lives. And we can't afford to turn our back on that and say that the ship sailed. I think we've got an uphill struggle. So definitely the gap between what we can achieve with technologies and how we understand how to do that safely and beneficially is widening. And we've got to get smart at how we narrow this gap. And that's exactly actually what we're doing through the forum with ideas such as agile governance. How do we develop approaches to ensuring that the safety and the responsibility of technologies by closing that gap using innovative methods? So I don't think that the ship has sailed. I think we have a huge uphill struggle in front of us. But I actually think that we have the innovative capabilities to close that gap. Thank you so much. And that is indeed what we'll be trying to do here at the annual meeting of the new champions 2018. Thank you very much for joining us this morning and it's been difficult getting in. I appreciate that and it's wonderful to have this annual engagements. And thank you so much for joining us here in the room and watching us live online. This session is now over.


Hi, I'm Zor. Welcome to Unizor education. I think it's time to do some exercises with indefinite integrals. We spend some time to define what basically is indefinite integral as an operation which is inverse to differentiation. I also explained some physical considerations which led to the concept of integral. Speed, distance, how to basically find out what's the distance, if you know the speed at every point. So let's just do some exercises. I have 10 different very very simple exercises on integration and let's just do them just one by one. Number one, what is integral of just gx? Well, I mean you might just stop and think about, usually we're talking about integral of f of x dx equals g of x plus c where derivative of g is equal to f, right? And they don't have an f of x here, right? There is no function. Well, there is a function. The function is equal to 1, obviously. So the function which is always equal to 1, that's my function, it's a constant. Now the question is, what is the function derivative of which is equal to 1? Well, obviously the function is function x. So function g of x is equal to x. If you take a derivative, that's x to the power of 1 and the derivative would be 1 times x to the power of 1 minus 1, which is 0. So we have 1. That's number one. Number two, I have integral of x to the power of adx. Now, I will write an answer just because I remember what is the derivative of the power function. So the power function, whenever I put something like this, I know that derivative reduces the power by 1. And there is a factor here, right? Derivative of this is a plus 1 times a plus 1 minus 1, which means x to the power of 8. So I've got x to the power of a, but I have this factor a plus 1, which we have to neutralize somehow. So to neutralize, I divide it by a plus 1 and then plus c. Obviously a should not be equal to minus 1 in this case. For minus 1, it's a different story. We will do it later. I do have another problem with this. So that actually gives me the function, the derivative of which is equal to x to the power of a, because x to the power of a plus 1 gives me a plus 1 times x to the power of a, if I differentiate it. And then I have to divide by a plus 1 to get just x to the power of a. Next, e to the power of x. Now, e to the power of x is the only function derivative of which is equal to itself. So I know that this is e to the power of x plus c, obviously. Because the derivative of e to the power of x is equal to e to the power of x. So we know that. Now, these are all very, very trivial things, and they're immediately following from what we know about derivatives. The derivative of a power function and the derivative of exponential function. So there's another exponential function, integral of a to the power of x dx. Now, do you remember what is a derivative of a to the power of x? Well, that's a to the power of x times natural logarithm of a. So I have to neutralize natural logarithm of a to get just a to the power of x. Derivative of this is a to the power of x multiplied by logarithm of a. So I have to divide it by logarithm, natural logarithm of a to get just a to the power of x. Next, let's go to this function. This is exactly x to the power of minus one. Now, one of the few things which I remember about differentiation that logarithm x has a derivative one over x. I do remember power function. I do remember exponential function. I do remember logarithm, and I remember sine and cosine. Everything else I derive from it. So I do remember this logarithm x. If you differentiate it, you will get one over x. Now let's wipe it out and go to the next series. This is a very simple and very short lecture which I have titled simple exercise. So it's very, very simple. It's just sufficient to know some basic formulas of differentiation to come up with whatever I have here. Six, integral of sine of x. Now, what is a derivative? What is the function derivative of which is equal to sine? Well, cosine, right? But cosine gives me minus sine. So I have to get minus cosine x to get minus sine and minus would be plus sine. And that's exactly what it is. Now, similarly, what is function derivative of which is equal to cosine? Again, I do remember it happened to be sine. So I have this. Eight, cosine x minus sine x. Well, obviously you probably guess that it should be some kind of a linear combination between sine and cosine. So if I will take sine to get this and cosine to get minus sine, the derivative of which would be cosine minus sine, right? So that would be an answer. Next two. Okay, integral of hyperbolic sine of x. Remember what it is? I think I did explain it once. This is a to the power of x minus e to the power of minus x divided by 2. And cosine hyperbolic is equal to plus divided by 2. So let's go to derivative. What's the derivative of sine? Well, one half is going down, obviously, right? e to the power of x, derivative is e to the power of x. Now minus, minus derivative of e to the power of minus x. Now that's a chain rule. First we do e to the power of something. This is e to the power of something times derivative of inner function, which is multiplication of minus 1 gives me plus. And which is what? This is cosine. So derivative of hyperbolic sine is a hyperbolic cosine. Now derivative of hyperbolic cosine is e to the power of x. And it would be minus e to the power of minus x and one half. So it would be hyperbolic sine, right? So let's use it. Now we know that this is dx, cosine hyperbolic plus c. And my last example, integral of hyperbolic cosine is hyperbolic sine plus c. Well, it's not an accident that these functions are called sines, hyperbolic but sines. Because they're really behaving very much like real sine and cosine. For instance, real sine has a derivative of cosine and hyperbolic sine has a derivative of cosine. Real cosine has a derivative of minus sine. But, well, minus is just a minor detail. Hyperbolic sine has a derivative of sine. So they're turning into each other by differentiation. And by the way, the formula about sine square plus cosine square equals to one. In this case, it's actually cosine square minus sine square is equal to one. It's very easy to prove. And that was my last example. I do suggest you to go through this again. You can take a look at the Unisor.com website and look at the website. All these examples are there with answers. Try to do them just by yourself. So you remember it a little bit better. Well, other than that, that's it. It's a very short lecture and the real difficulties will come next. Thank you very much. Good luck.