erasu bo rodio. I hope everybody, and I hope to welcome to those online as well to the third day of the whole conference. I think we're in for a treat this morning, so it would've been well worth getting up after the night before.  She's an educational writer, who some of you may have come across, because she's written in many influential publications, including Higher Ed, the Huffington Post and Educating Modern Learners. She tells me that she's also telling me that she's currently working on a book called Teaching Machines and that's reflected in the title so maybe we're going to get a little bit of a sneak preview, I'm not sure. One other thing she does do which is absolutely fascinating is a writer blog called Hack Education and I've stolen from there the introduction she has to herself in the interest of reusing open resources, I thought rather than write my own I'll use hers. So she describes herself there as an education writer, a recovering academic, a serial drop out, a rabble rowser and some days Ed Tech Cassandra. I confess I had to look up who Cassandra was but turns out Cassandra was a prophet who was cursed by Apollo so that people didn't believe her prophecies. I'm hoping today Audrey that the rabble we have for you here will believe some of your prophecies and I'm sure you'll have some interesting questions and discussions following the presentation. So I'd like to hand over then to Audrey and please welcome her to the conference. Thank you, thank you very much. I'm thrilled to be here. On Monday, driving on our way up here to Coventry, we, and we means myself, my boyfriend and my mum, we stopped at Bletchley Park with the site of the British government's code and Cypher school during the Second World War and the current location of the National Museum and Computing. My boyfriend is accompanying me as he always does. We travel together, our tech world's overlap quite nicely. Some of you might know him, Ken Layma, API evangelist. And he's here because I'm here but he's also here because he's a huge fan of Martin Hoxie's work. So that was great and he's also a huge fan of drinking beer with David Curnahan. So he's very, it's very unlike him to sort of miss out on opportunities to come to the UK to be with you all. And my mum is here as well because my family on her side of the family at least is from England and we've reached that sort of difficult part in my granny's life where she's 90 years old and we sort of rotating through sort of how we can come over from the States and be good children and good grandchildren and come visit her. So I told her I was coming over and we sort of timed our visit together which is great because she's also volunteered to drive Ken and I around on the wrong side of the road. So I'm very appreciative, very appreciative of that. So when we were planning the trip I said to my mum, I said, you know, as we drive up from London can we please stop at Bletchley Park? And she said casually, oh I think your grandfather might have worked there. And I said, what? Like that's a piece of sort of family history I would have like to have known about as someone who sort of writes about computers, thinks about computers a lot for a living. I mean I hadn't really thought about it until that moment that there might be a family connection there but it sort of does make sense. My grandfather during the war was the station commander at Chain Home Low so an early radar development where they helped develop radar, early warning radar base. He later became the Air Officer Commander in Chief at Signals Command. He was knighted for his work actually in developing radar but I'm not sure he ever really talked that much about it. He certainly never mentioned I think any of the work that he might have done at Bletchley Park. Of course this was sort of like the huge secret. In fact my granny said that during the war she never knew what he did until afterwards. She never asked, we never talked about it. And he passed away I think before we could sort of have any of these conversations that would have been really interesting to me about sort of how does technology, how do what we do with computers fit into this other military project. And I'm fascinated by these sorts of stories. The reason that I say I'm Ed Tech's Cassandra is definitely in terms of making predictions and prophecies about sort of the doom that might be on the horizon. But I'm also a folklorist by training and I'm very interested in the stories that we tell. That's important to me. I'm a folklorist by training. I'm not an instructional designer. I'm not a software engineer. I'm not a business person. I'm not an investor in education technology. I play a journalist on the internet. I'm not a computer scientist. I'm a folklorist. I'm interested in stories as much as sort of our disciplinary training sort of helps shape how we see the world. I am a folklorist. I am interested in the stories that we tell particularly the sorts of hidden stories and the forgotten stories and the lost stories much like sort of my grandfather's involvement perhaps in Bletchley Park. Or more broadly I think the way in which we sort of have forgotten to talk about to computer history and surveillance and war. I'm really interested in what stories we tell and whose stories get told, how these stories reflect and I think even sort of construct and shape our world. These are the worlds I think of science and politics, culture and of course education. I try in my work to sort of trace and retrace some of these, the connections through some of these different stories, these different narratives and counter narratives of well as well. The stories of business and then also the stories of bullshit which is a lot of what you hear from the Silicon Valley tech sector. My keynote this morning is going to try to weave together lots of these different stories to you and my apologies if you're hung over. If the keynote doesn't make sense, it's actually the booze's fault and not that I'm incoherent. But I'm trying to pull together stories from history, from literature and from science. When I heard that the theme of the conference was writing giants I confessed that I didn't actually think about waves even though I live in Southern California sort of in the middle of surfer culture and I didn't think of Isaac Newton's famous saying standing on the shoulders of giants. I thought about giants the way that a folklorist would. So as I was preparing my talk I think I sort of went off on a different direction with giants. And so what I want to talk to you about this morning is monsters. I want to talk about ed tech's monsters and machines. I want us to think about Bletchley Park perhaps on the road to where we are today thinking about some of the different paths that have got us to this place in education technology as well. I mean no doubt in the last few years we've witnessed a real resurgence in interest in education technology. A renewed interest in a growing interest particularly from those in Silicon Valley. I think that folks here at this conference are certainly well aware that there is a lengthy history to education technology. But many of the folks that I talked to some of the newest proponents of education technology particularly in the states particularly in Silicon Valley insist that ed tech has no history. They invented it. That there's only now ed tech only has a now and the future. That there's really nothing to be talked about or learned about from the past. And ed tech now as they see it is really closely tied in with venture capital particularly in the states. And it's sort of a very powerful form of storytelling that many of these ed tech proponents are telling. And sort of the media has picked up a lot of these stories as well. We've sort of seen this in particular with the MOOCs. The storytelling is about sort of this disruptive innovation mythology, entrepreneurial hagiography, right. Design fiction and fantasy.  You know we've been given a map in some way. Society has been handed a map of the world as drawn out now by many of these companies in technology. And they sort of want to think about the ways in which these new brave new ed tech explorers, the brave new entrepreneurs are going to sort of conquer lands for us and divide up and rethink and reshape our digital spaces. They're doing this sort of for us. This is their fantasy, right. And they warn us down at the bottom of that map. You know they warn us of these technologies of the past that perhaps we should stay away from the dangerous, unexplored or overly explored places that we should reject because they're stagnant, they're no longer populated, right. There are dragons there. Hic cent drachonis, right. There be dragons down in the forgotten land of forgotten websites. But I actually want to argue that we need to face our dragons in education technology. We need to face the monsters that have been created. We need to face the giants. And they aren't actually simply on the margins of the maps. These monsters are sort of littered, scattered throughout these lands. So I'm in the middle of writing a book actually about some of these questions, a book called Teaching Machines. It's a cultural history of the science and politics of education technology. I think it's an anthropology event of ed tech. It's a book that looks at sort of knowledge and power and practices, sort of learning and politics and pedagogy. I'm really interested in sort of this long running push for efficiency, this desire to build machines, sort of the history of education technology throughout the 20th century pre-computers that was very much interested in automating instruction, of tools like the intelligent tutoring systems, artificially intelligent textbooks. That's one I saw recently, robo-graders and robo-readers. It involves, I think, some of this does involve a nod to the father of computer science, right, Alan Turing, who worked at Blashley Park, of course, and his profoundly significant question, can a machine think? And I want to ask and turn, can a machine teach? What happens when and if machines can think? And what happens when and if machines teach? What does that, what happens to labor? What happens to work? And what happens to learning as we start to find these things more and more automated in our lives? And what exactly do we mean by those verbs, right, think and teach? When we see signs of thinking or teaching in machines, what does that really signal? Does it really signal that machines are becoming more intelligent, or does it in fact signal perhaps that humans are becoming more mechanical? Rather than sort of speculate on the future of teaching in machines, I really want to turn back to the past. It was long before Blashley Park or Alan Turing machines sort of have spoken in binary and ones and zeros. And quite recently I literally got tattoos on my forearms to sort of remind me, as I said, and type on my computer about the way in which machines speak to us. So on my left arm here, I have this, an excerpt from Leaves of Grass. This is Walt Whitman in binary, resist much, obey little. Words to live by. And this one, rather more lengthy, from Lord Byron, which is from his song of the Luddites, Down with All Kings but King Ludd. And I do appreciate the irony, as I do, of a song to the Luddites in binary. I'm really interested in these questions right around poetry and storytelling and resistance in machines. Lord Byron is a particularly fascinating figure in all of this to me. He was, of course, one of the very few defenders of the Luddites. His only appearance in the House of Lords was when he gave a speech challenging the 1812 Frame Breaking Act, which made destruction of the mechanized looms punishable by death. The Luddites were really interesting and sort of maligned, of course, these 19th century artisans who protested against the introduction of factory-owned mechanized machines. They were upset about the labor-saving textile devices. And let's be clear, the emphasis for the Luddites was on the labor part of that problem, not necessarily on the machines. They wanted to protect their livelihoods. They demanded higher wages in a time of economic upheaval, mass unemployment, and, of course, the long Napoleonic wars. They were opposed to the factories, not so much because there was technology, but because the corporations owned the technology and the means of production. The Luddites weren't really anti-technology per se, but that's what the word has come to mean. The wonderful Oxford English Dictionary says that Luddites were the original meaning, like a member of the organized band of English mechanics and their friends, 1811 through 1816, who set themselves to destroy manufacturing machinery in the Midlands in the north of England, the etymology from the proper name Ludd with the suffix ight. According to Pellew's life of Lord Sidmouth, Ned Ludd was a person of weak intellect who lived in the Leicestershire village about 1779, who, in a fit of insane rage, rushed into a stockinger's house, destroyed two frames so completely that saying, Ludd must have been here, came to be used throughout the hosary districts when a stocking frame had undergone extraordinary damage. The story lacks confirmation, but it appears that in 1811 through 1813 the nickname Captain Ludd or King Ludd was commonly given to the ringleaders of the Luddites. Ludd was, as this image shows, a giant. Today we use the Luddite, I think, in what the OED calls its transferred sense, one who opposes the introduction of technology specifically into the place of work. The sample usage from the OED entry from the economist, of course, who else would you cite about Luddites, the economist from 1986, quote, by suggesting the modern world has lost control of its technology, these accidents help to strengthen the hands of the Luddites who would halt technology and therefore halt economic growth. I think that's the way the term is used as this pejorative today. If you question technology, clearly you're against economic growth. To oppose technology to fear or question automation, some folks like the economist, venture capitalists Mark Andreessen, for example, they argue that that means you misunderstand how the economy actually works. I would suggest that perhaps the Luddites understood pretty well how the economy works. I would suggest that when it comes to questions of who owns the machinery, they sort of nailed it, and I would say that the economy works quite well for venture capitalists like Mark Andreessen, and maybe we should question that. In 1984, American novelist Thomas Pinchon asked, is it okay to be a Luddite? Suggesting that in the new computer age, it may well be that we have mostly lost our Luddite sensibility. We no longer resist or rage against the machine, but he cautions some day we might have to. He writes, if our world survives, this is 1984, it was Reagan, that's right, it was this question, like if the world survives, right? The next great challenge to watch out for will come. You heard it here first. When the curves of research and development in artificial intelligence, molecular biology and robotics converge, oh boy, it will be amazing and unpredictable, and even the biggest of brass, let us devoutly hope, are going to be caught flat-footed. It is certainly something for all good Luddites to look forward to. God willing, should we live so long. Here we are now, 30 years later, from Pinchon's essay, facing these pronouncements and predictions again, that not just the factory jobs, not just the textile work, but all of our jobs, the white-collar jobs, are on the cusp of being automated. We are entering a new phase in world history, one in which fewer and fewer workers will be needed to produce the goods and services for the global population. That's from Eric Brangelsen and Andrew McAfee in their book, Race Against the Machine. Before the end of the century says Wired Magazine, 70% of today's occupations will be replaced by automation. The economist gives a more rapid timeline, as they would. Nearly half of American jobs will be automated in the next decade. We are, some would say, on this cusp of a great revolution in artificial intelligence in computers and robotics. A great revolution, I suppose, in human labor. Of course, little asterisks that folks in AI have been predicting a revolution in AI that's always 20 years in the future, always since the beginning of AI. It's always been 20 years off, but there we go. It's always on the horizon. It's really for real this time, I'm sure. Like I said, these technological stories that we tell, they are fantasy, they are fantastic, always on the future. I think we do have to thank Alan Turing for laying some of the philosophical groundwork for artificial intelligence. Of course, ironically, despite the affinity with the Luddites, we do have to thank Lord Byron. He was the father of Ada Lovelace, who is generally considered the first computer programmer. She worked with Charles Babbage on his analytical engine. I love these sorts of comments. One of the few people to stand up for the Luddites gave birth to the person who brought us to this world today. I think Byron is interesting too, and now as we celebrate 200 years of Luddites, we're actually coming up on another bison tennery in a couple of years as well that Byron was there for as well that summer, when he and a group of small friends, Percy Shelley, John William, Paul Dory, Claire Montt and Mary Godwin, they spent the summer of 1816 in Lake Geneva, Switzerland, a wet, ungenial summer, said Mary, when they all decided to try their hands at writing ghost stories. And there, Mary Godwin, later Mary Shelley, wrote Frankenstein, first published in 1818, arguably the first work of science fiction, certainly one of the most important and influential texts when we think about what it means to have science and technology and monsters come together. Monsters, of course, it's important to think monsters. Frankenstein is about monsters and not machines. However much of Frankenstein's longevity is owing to the unsung genius of James Whale, who translated it into film Thomas Pinschens' essay about Luddites, it remains more than worthwhile reading. For all the reasons that we read novels, as well as for the much more limited question of its Luddite value, that is, for its attempt through literary means which are nocturnal and deal with danger to deny the machine. It's really interesting because while the lab visualized in James Whale's great 1931 movie, it's full of equipment, full of equipment. The novel itself actually has very, very little machines in it. I think there's a passing mention of something that does create the galvanic twitch that was able to lurch and bring the creation to life, but really the novel doesn't do all of this fancy laboratory work. Pinschens argues that it's actually really important that there's very little technology, very little machinery in the novel. He says that this represents the gothic interest in rejecting the future of science, returning to an age of miracles. To insist on the miracles, argues Pinschen, is to deny the machine, at least some of its claims on us, to assert the limited wish that living beings, earthly or otherwise, may on occasion become bad and big enough to take part in transcendence. Even without machines, however, Frankenstein is always read as this cautionary tale about science and about technology. The story has left an indelible impression upon us. We use Franken now as the sort of shorthand to refer to all sorts of things that we find to be abominations. Frankenfood and Frankenfish, the monster, this monstrosity is like this technological crime against nature. I think it's very telling that often in popular parlance that we confuse the scientist Victor Frankenstein with the creature. We call the creature itself Frankenstein. The sociologist Bruno Latour argued that we don't actually merely make that mistake. It's not merely a matter of making the mistake of confusing the monster with the scientist, but we actually get the whole crime wrong. It was not that Frankenstein invented a creature through some combination of hubris and technology, says Latour, but rather the crime was that he abandoned the creature to itself. The creature, again, a giant, insists in the novel that he was not born a monster. He became monstrous after Frankenstein fled the laboratory in horror when the creature opened his dull yellow eyes, convulsed and breathed. Remember that I am thy creature, he says when he confronts Frankenstein in the Alps. I ought to be thy Adam, but rather I am the fallen angel whom thou divests from joy for no misdeed, everywhere I see bliss, but from which I am alone, I alone, and irrevocably excluded. I was benevolent and good. Misery made me afeind. Latour says, written at the dawn of the great technological revolutions that would define the 19th and 20th century, Frankenstein foresees the gigantic sins that were to be committed that would hide a much greater sin. It is not the case that we have failed to care for creation. It is that we have failed to care for our technological creations. We confuse the monster with his creator. We blame our sins against nature upon our technological creations. But our sin is not that we've created technologies, but we have failed to love and care for our technologies. It is if we have decided that we were unable to follow through with the education of our children. Our gigantic sin, again, is that we failed to love and care for our technological creations. We must love and educate our children. We must love and care for our machines lest they become monsters. Indeed, Frankenstein is also a novel about education. The novel is structured as a series of narratives about education. Captain Walton, who writes letters back to his sister, talks about his education. Inside, that's the story of Victor Frankenstein and his education. Tucked inside of that is the story of the creature and his education that he learns from observing people. It's the story of what happens when science goes awry, but it's also the story of what happens when education goes awry, when education isn't about guidance and love and care and support. Oh, that I had remained forever in my native wood, nor known or felt beyond the sensations of hunger, thirst and heat, the creature says. In his article Love Your Monsters, Bruno Latour says that Frankenstein is a good parable for thinking about political ecology. Again, the lesson is that we should step away from technology. It's not that we should sort of reject innovation or reject science, but rather we have to sort of strengthen our commitment to our patience with our political commitment to all of creation. Capital C creation now includes our science and our machines. Frankenstein I think might also be an interesting parable for education technology in the same way. What are we going to make of ed tech's monsters? What are we going to do about our machines? Is there something to be said about pedagogy, technology and what we're seeing increasingly perhaps as an absence of care? We have 200 years of Luddites, we have 200 years of Frankenstein and by my calculations at least we have about 150 years of building teaching machines. To be clear, I think when I give a nod to Luddites and to Frankenstein again, it's not about rejecting technology, it's not about rejecting science, but it is about rejecting exploitation. It's about rejecting what's become really an uncritical and unexamined belief that these technologies sort of equal progress. The problem isn't again that science gives us monsters, it's that we have pretended like science is sort of divorced from our responsibility, divorced from love, divorced from politics, that science gives us the truth. The problem isn't again that science gives us monsters, but that it actually doesn't give us answers either. And that's I think the problem with ed tech's monsters. That's the problem with teaching machines. They want us to have precise truth answers. They're built on this idea that if we're to automate education we have to see knowledge in a certain way. We have to see knowledge as sort of atomistic, fixed, hierarchical, measurable, non-negotiable. In order to make a lot of our education technologies we've come to view the world as a very fixed thing. I love putting these three images on the slide. I'm sorry. My apologies to go out to the Skinner family. Except not really. Although teaching machines do predate his work by almost a century, they are most commonly associated with wonderfully bad guy looking up on the top right-hand side, Harvard psychologist B.F. Skinner. Here's an excerpt from wonderfully evil looking in Rand about Skinner. She's describing his 1971 book Beyond Freedom and Dignity. The book itself, she says, is like Boris Karloff's embodiment of Frankenstein's monster. It's a corpse patched with nuts, bolt screws from the junkyard of philosophy, pragmatism, social Darwinism, positivism, linguistic analysis with some nails made by Hume, some threads by Bertrand Russell, and glue from the New York Post. Damn, no one ever better review my book like that. The book's voice, like Karloff's, is an emission of inarticulate moaning growls directed at a special enemy, autonomous man. Now, I quote Rand's criticism here, of course, because she invokes Frankenstein's outfits quite nicely, and I'm really fascinated by the fact that she's sort of arguing, here we go, that B.F. Skinner, this really monumental figure in education technology and education psychology is Frankenstein, right? He is, and that he's created, his science behaviorism is this misbegotten creature from a misbegotten science. B.F. Skinner is Frankenstein, and I think that's interesting how she sort of plays into this notion of a film that he's playing God, right? He dares play God, that his creations are monsters and that Skinner is fixated on control, a rejection of freedom and the absence of emotion or care. Of course, but I do quote Ayn Rand before you're all horrified. I quote her with a great deal of irony, of course, because the part, the Silicon Valley tech industry right now could not be more fascinated with her. The Valley right now is full of these sort of laissez-faire, objectivist, libertarian capitalists who really are embracing her vision of the world, which I would argue is monstrous in its own right. Rand uses Skinner as a way to sort of say this is why we actually can't have federal funding of science. She says that in her book review. This is a great example of why the government needs to not be involved with research and we need to open up science to the free marketplace of ideas and the free marketplace of ideas will make sure that nonsense like behaviorism never will sort of lose.  She criticizes Skinner, right, that there is no freedom, that Skinner always wants to control us, lead our lives, sort of control by sort of scientific management by technocrats who know best but are offering us positive reinforcement. You know, it's she says that she will not stand for this but these behaviorist technologies are thrown throughout the technologies that we use today, right? Gamification, notifications, nudges, no surprise of course because of the rejection of history many folks in Silicon Valley don't actually know who BF Skinner is and wouldn't know behaviorism if it bit them. The Turing test of course, right? The sort of fundamental thing in artificial intelligence is in many ways a behaviorist test. As Alan Turing said the question isn't really can a machine think but can a machine exhibit behaviors behaviors that convince a human fool a human into thinking it is one as well. Again, monsters and machines. Before developing teaching machines, our friend BF Skinner here worked on a number of projects inventing as part of his graduate work what's now known as the Skinner box around 1930. The operant conditioning chamber which he used to study trained animals to perform certain tasks.  I mean, not literally candy often. During World War II my favorite Skinner story he actually worked on project pigeon an experimental project to create pigeon guided missiles. I'm not lying, truly. I cannot begin to tell you how much I wish I could talk to my grandfather about the development of radar and his thoughts on pigeon guided missiles. I mean, even more than talking to him about Bletchley Park I would love to have his thoughts on pigeons and war. But the military actually cancelled that project. They cancelled and revived the pigeon project several times. Our problem said Skinner was that no one would take us seriously. By 1953 the military had devised machines that would guide missiles and we no longer needed to rely on animals to guide the machines. That same year 1953 Skinner visited his fourth grade daughter's classroom and came up with the idea for the teaching machine. He was struck when he visited her classroom on how inefficient not only were the students expected to move through their lessons at the same pace but when it came to assignments and quizzes they actually had to wait sometimes a day a whole day to get the feedback from their teachers. Skinner believed that these were the flaws in schools that could be addressed through automation, through a machine. So we built a prototype that he demonstrated at a psychology conference the next year. All these elements are part of BF Skinner's teaching machines, right? The eliminations of efficiencies that come with human teachers. The delivery of immediate feedback. The ability for students to move at their own pace. I think today education technologists call that personalization. Addressing social problems including problems like school said Skinner meant addressing behaviors. As he wrote in Beyond Freedom and Dignity we need to make vast changes in human behaviors. What we need is a technology of behavior. Teaching machines he said would be one such technology. Teaching with or without machines Skinner said was reliance on contingencies of enforcement. The problem with human teachers he argued is that they just weren't consistent about how they reinforced things. They didn't reinforce right away like a machine could. Like I said, sometimes there was a delay between when a student would do something and when they would figure out whether or not they were right or wrong. Also the teachers he said were too often focused on punishing bad behaviors rather than rewarding good behaviors. Anyone who visits the lower trades of the average school today will observe that a change has been made not from aversive to positive control but from one form of aversive stimulation to another Skinner writes. With the application of behaviorism and the development of teaching machines there is no reason he insisted why the school room should be any less mechanized than the kitchen. Maybe there are reasons I would like to think that maybe monsters and Luddites can help us form a better response. According to Google Mgrams which is one of my favorite non-scientific tools to play with it's the tool that tracks the frequency of words within the corpus that Google has digitized. You can see as society became more and more industrialized we sort of talked about Luddites increasingly over the years. The pattern is sort of the same until interestingly the turn of the century the turn of the 21st century when according to Google at least and I'm sure that they have no interest in making it look this way and sort of to paraphrase Dr Strange Love I think we stopped worrying and came to love the machine but by love here I do wonder if we'd mean instead fascination and attachment with the shiny and the new with acquiest perhaps we're no longer engaging we're no longer engaging in our technologies scientifically, politically or sociologically and again this is not what Bruno LaTour meant when he said we should love our monsters. Is there interest in Luddites that only declines I fear we do face what Frankenstein counseled against a refusal to take responsibility. We see technology as this autonomous creation that's going to sort of enter the world and move society forward without any guidance under its own steam Wired magazines Kevin Kelly is probably the best example of this and he said in his book what technology wants its own wants it wants to sort itself out it wants to self assemble into hierarchies not just the most large and deeply as most large deeply interconnected systems do it wants what every living system wants it wants to perpetuate itself it wants to keep going as technology grows these wants are gaining in complexity and force that is monstrous that is Frankenstein's monster Kelly writes we can choose to modify our legal, political and economic assumptions to meet the ordained trajectories of technology but we cannot escape what technology wants we should just throw up our hands I guess surrender surrender to progress surrender to the machine it's a sleight of hand of course it suggests that technological changes are what technology wants it's an argument that sort of obscures what industry wants what business wants what systems, power wants I think it's an intellectually disingenuous and perhaps politically dangerous argument to make what does a teaching machine want for example what does a teaching machine demand I want to echo what Catherine said yesterday when she said that education demands our interest and our engagement I'll insist to you that technology demands our political interest and political engagement our sins are not that we have created technologies but that we have failed to love and care for them it is as if we decided we were unable to follow through on the education of our children political interest political engagement is love it is love for the world love and a little bit of leadism I want to leave you with one final quotation from Hannah Arendt who wrote education is the point in which we decide whether or not we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it and by the same token save it from that ruin which except for renewal except for the coming of the new and young would be inevitable education too is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world frankenstein sin and leave them to their own devices nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new something unforeseen by us but to prepare children in advance for the task of renewing our common world that is our task I believe to tell the stories to build the society that would place education technology in that same light to renew our common world we in education I think we have to face these monsters that we've created these monsters that we've inherited we've inherited monsters from the technologies in Bletchley Park we've inherited monsters we've inherited monsters from mass production and standardization we've inherited monsters in education technology from behaviorism and control these are the monsters I think we have to face we have to consider what monsters education technology lives with we have to face them we have to confront them and we have to make sure we are engaged politically not creating more monsters thank you thank you very much Audrey fascinating inspiring journey through stories and history Ben Steples has tweeted while he's been talking he's still going to be talking about that in six months time but we do have a few minutes to sort of start the conversations now so I'd like to invite any comments or questions we have questions as well from our online audience who's got the online link at the end okay I think does anybody like to start us off with some questions or comments from the US and our monsters are slightly different ones so yes there's been the narrative about efficiency and evidence based particularly since the new Labour government but we've just been much less good at it educational research is much more qualitative and humanist and participated in the UK tradition and the edtech project has been more focused on the student experience and enhancing academic practice so though we have monsters that recognize that they're slightly different ones no I think that that's actually a really great observation is one of the things that frightens me very much is that as we as we in the US export our technologies that we're exporting with that often times the ideology that comes with technologies right so that it is a sort of a form of it's a different sort of form of imperialism I wouldn't call it sort of necessarily cultural imperialism but it is sort of like this imperialism at the level of infrastructure that I worry I worry deeply that sort of other countries are not just adopting our ridiculously horrid education policy which go seem to do that quite well following the US's ridiculous education policies but I worry that as sort of we spread these new technologies and MOOCs are a great example of that so we sort of spread these throughout the world on Facebook all of these that they carry with them these other sorts of this other ideology particularly this sort of radical individualism that is very much a randian project but it's very much an American project as well that's a great point thank you I'm glad you have different monsters I guess I think it's a really really good point about the importance of storytelling and the stories that we tell and one interesting reflection I think the sort of fashionableness of MOOCs in the UK amongst policy makers came partly from David Willits minister visiting California and getting caught up in the excitement of the venture capitalists and the story that these exciting new technologies are coming from the venture capitalists of California which of course probably most of us would tell a very different story about that and I'm kind of reflecting on the story told last year actually at this conference by Wendy Hall about openness and perhaps the most significant thing about the invention of the web in Tim Berners-Lee making that open deciding there wasn't going to be any monetary value attached to it it was part of the human intellectual commons and I'm just sort of wondering how we tell that sort of counter story about openness and it's real value in an effective way I think that this is one of the great the great challenges that those of us that work in education know the different stories sort of we're faced with when particularly when journalists find the stories that the venture capitalists and technology sector tell very compelling school is broken someone should fix it by my product it fits quite nicely into the three paragraph story that journalists tell and I think that that is our challenge is to be able to sort of present the counter narrative and present it powerfully I think fortunately we have access to I think social media can help crack open the sort of dominant the dominant narrative we're able to sort of tell our own stories through our own voices now but I do think the challenge is to also be able to sort of tell that story at the not national popular mainstream media level as well even if sort of like all of us have to do a better job of sort of making sure that our friends in journalism don't fall prey to the sort of this grand narrative that thank goodness for filling the blank person from Stanford University who's going to rescue us from from our from our failure from from our institutions failure to move forward many of us within education I think see the interesting innovations that happen all the time they just don't look like the story that the media tells that I showed a group of Chinese teachers around UK schools to look at how to look at how education technology was being used to improve teaching and and these were people who typically taught between 90 and 120 children in a class and you know if anybody was out of line they put them in the class and they got beaten and so there were some downsides to the way they taught but it was very effective and what was going in and looking honestly and objectively at what was going on in the ed tech at the time when the government was putting lots of money into it it was very clear that a lot of the things that were being done were being done because there was the technology that needed to be sold not because there was a learning outcome that was going to be delivered better but it was a human being communicating, intuiting understanding, caring reading eyes, looking at attention spans and all of those kinds of things and the quality of the teaching wasn't improved by the technology and as technologies we can say you're not adopting the technology if teachers had adopted the technology when they were given it every time they were given it no teaching would have gone on at all the humility of understanding that the best teachers the best teaching that goes on is with one person with another person and whatever is being taught objectively so much subjective stuff is going on and that's real learning that's going on and as you're saying exercising one tiny muscle isn't keeping anybody fit and just breaking everything down into binary you've learnt this, yes, no it's going on that perspective on what we're doing is extremely refreshing and I think can't be said often enough thank you very much I think it's interesting that oftentimes I notice that technology is often and not just education technology but in general technology is often used to make the practices that we already do just work a little bit more efficiently we can do it faster, better, stronger perhaps some promise more cheaply but usually just a new set of people profit from it and I think that one of the challenges should be too how does technology transform our practice it isn't simply how do we use technology to do that old thing but just in a new like you know move from print textbooks to textbooks on an iPad is not actually that exciting I mean it's exciting for Apple and Pearson because they want us to buy their new thing but it's not actually transformation the way in which some of the potential to do things really differently oh right, thank you Nigel Ecclesfield from JISC I'm very interested in the way in which you're starting to look at the vocabulary adopted by Silicon Valley and trying to reclaim perfectly good words from the way in which they've been jargonized and colonized by the followers of Ayn Rand and others so it brings to my mind George Bush's wonderful comment that the problem with the French is they didn't have a word for entrepreneur and I'm particularly exercised by a term that's come out of the states from Harvard public value and I blog quite a lot on that because I think that both of those words need reclaiming from the Harvard people who see public value as designed and developed by senior managers in public services. I feel that somewhere, like in education the learners and the practitioners have a role in defining what the policies are but we're in a position at the moment where even in the operations of the great free services like Google what we're coming to be able to access and use is what the algorithms have decided we should know and use and it's really useful and very positive today to have somebody who comes in to reclaim good words like Luddite and I think just to finish one of the great things that the Luddites did when they were campaigning before they started machine smashing was to propose in the economy a small tax on the cloth produced in the new machines in order to re-educate retrain and re-employ those people who were being thrown out of work in the cottage industries. I'm really interested in the Luddites as well, this notion something that's also really important to me is thinking about how can we reclaim reclaim technologies instead of giving up more and more of our personal data more and more of our content to these large providers be they Facebook or Blackboard or Google that we have better control and understanding of technology and I think that's an interesting lesson for the Luddite, from the Luddites as well it's not about being opposed to mechanized looms the problem was when Google owns the mechanized looms the problem isn't in the web the problem is when the web becomes Google and Facebook and so how do we rest back rest back control of the technological production so that so that we have it again that it's not controlled by the new factories the Google factory I think you have a blog on Twitter as well could you join me again please and thank you very much


By about AD 401 to 421, the Lamanites have destroyed most of the Nephites. While in hiding, Moroni finishes and preserves his Father Mormon's record of the people. Based on actual events as recorded in the Book of Mormon, another testament of Jesus Christ. A tremendous battle at Gomorrah. Behold, the Nephites who had escaped into the country southward were hunted by the Lamanites until they were all destroyed. And my Father also was killed by them. And I even remain alone to write the sad tale of the destruction of my people. And whether they will slay me, I know not. But the eternal purposes of the Lord shall go on until all his promises shall be fulfilled. For out of the earth shall these covenants and prophecies come by the hand of the Lord. And it shall come even as if one should speak from the dead. The Lord has shown unto me great and marvelous things concerning that which must shortly come. At that day when these things shall come forth among you. I speak unto you as if you were present, and yet you are not. But behold, Jesus Christ has shown you unto me, and I know you're doing. Condemn me not because of my imperfection, but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that he may learn to be more wise than we have been. I have not as yet perished, and I make not myself known to the Lamanites because they put to death every Nephite that will not deny the Christ. And I will not deny the Christ. Wherefore, I wander with or so ever I can for the safety of my own life. Now I write unto my brethren the Lamanites, and I would that they should know that more than 420 years have passed away since the sign was given of the coming of Christ. And I seal up these records after I have spoken a few words by way of exhortation unto you. Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men from the creation of Adam, even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts. And when ye receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God the Eternal Father in the name of Christ if these things are not true. And if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you by the power of the Holy Ghost. And by the power of the Holy Ghost, he may know the truth of all things. Wherefore, deny not the power of God, for he worketh according to the faith of the children of men. The same today and tomorrow and forever. And God shall show unto you that that which I have written is true. Come unto Christ and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, that by his grace he may be perfect in Christ. Wherefore, this book is an abridgment of the record of the people of Nephi and also of the Lamanites, written to the Lamanites who are a remnant of the house of Israel, and also to Jew and Gentile, written by way of commandment and also by the spirit of prophecy and of revelation, written and sealed up and hid up unto the Lord to come forth by the gift and power of God in due time by way of the Gentile, to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers, and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever, and also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the eternal God.


The photocatalytic degradation of CIP from aquia solutions using CQD decorated on NCU Kodope Titania, NCUT CQD, was studded through two synthesis steps by Solgel and hydrothermal methods. The results showed that the complete removal of ciprofloxacin, CIP, 20 mg per litre, could be achieved at pH 7.0, NCUT CQD for weight percent, 0.8gL, and light intensity, 100 mW per square centimeter over 60-minute reaction time. The O2 and O radicals were identified as the primary reactive species during the decontamination process. The synth-sized photocatalyst could be recycled after six consecutive cycles of CIP decomposition with an insignificant decrease in performance. Pharmaceutical wastewater was treated through the optimum degradation conditions which showed the photocatalytic degradation eliminated 89% of COD and 75% of TOC within 180 minutes. In the effluent toxicity evaluation, the EC50 values for treated and untreated pharmaceutical wastewater increased from 62.50% to 140% indicating that the NCUT CQD for weight percent this system can effectively reduce the toxic effects of pharmaceutical wastewater on aquatic environments. This article was authored by Roganaruzi, Mitragol Army, Vahide Oskoe, and others. We are article.tv, links in the description below.


Did everybody already have a great day today? This is the last talk, I hope you don't fall asleep. I will do my best for that. To start, who are the developers in this room? Who considers themselves a WordPress developer? That's awesome, I can talk some geeky things. Who considers themselves a PHP developer? Ah, yeah, yeah, yeah. And who considers themselves a full stack developer? This is really good. So I'm going to need to up my level a little bit here for the talk. That's great. Good. Automating WordPress. But first, my name is Johan Janssen, and I'm a Juma co-founder. Now you would ask yourself, what does a Juma co-founder kind of formerly developed for us in work camps? Well, this is us, part of the 70 co-founders of Juma. There are two Dutch people here, Arno and Tringy. So Juma, in a sense, is also a little bit of a challenge. We started this 20 years ago. And we were most known or still most known for document management extension called document. You might know or you don't, but I started as a volunteer working on this 20 years ago. When I started writing my first little lines of free software. And recently, the last couple of years, more and more people started asking us, can you also make this for WordPress? So that's what we did. This is not a talk about that. But if you want to check it out, there's the URL. So we have also built our document management extension for WordPress. You can find that there. That's what brings me here. I want to learn more about the WordPress community. And I'm just trying to do that with the talk about automating WordPress. I send in, I think, five or six different topics. And this was the one that chose it. I'm not sure why. But then again, this was the one. So I was like, okay, let's do something with that. How do you automate WordPress? And when I talk about people about that, I always feel like a little bit earlier, I was talking about, yeah, I'm going to do this talk about automating WordPress. And the first thing that I told you was, that you all want to talk for that, you don't want to have plugins for it. Plugins on the plugin directory, you can find an enormous amount of plugins that help you to do exactly that. It's true. So I'm not going to talk about any of those plugins. You can find them there. You can check them out. But what if you want to automate WordPress without any plugins? And why would we want to do that? Why is it actually sometimes better to do automation without going for plugins? Well, because less is more, and less is also a little bit profitable more. As you've seen from the first couple of talks this morning, as I understand it, a lot was about sustainability and performance and optimizing your sites and dealing with all of that. You've learned that the more plugins you install in your site, the slower the site will eventually become. You need caching and optimizations to help solve that problem, right? With automation, that's a different problem because you cannot cache automation. But that doesn't really work. So if you start adding automation plugins to your site, eventually the site is going to become quite slow with all the background tasks that it's going to start doing in the background. Now why is that? All PHP developers among you. Oh, this is the speaker who asks questions. Question, why is it not so good to do automation tasks with WordPress? It's a PHP question. It clips once, it dies after the execution. It could die. No state management. No state management. Yes, another one. We're personally not made for command-line by itself. Automation is usually done here on command-line. Good one, another one. Doesn't have like a queuing system? Yes, no queuing system, definitely. Another one. ChromeJob could be executing during the report. Exactly, you need to go to ChromeJobs and they need to be available. Then you also, if you don't do ChromeJobs, you're ending up with 30 seconds problems. You have a scheduler, all right. So a little bit of context. I'm calling this, this is a little bit of history. Five minutes of web history, how do we get here? Like how do we go to this place called WordPress? Maybe because I come from a very different background that I can try to bring this to you a little bit. So very in the very beginning, there was nothing but HTML. And everybody was a front-end guy. The world was simple. There was no PHP developers, there was no full-stack developers, there was no viewing coach. Yes, it was all HTML. And it was pretty simple. We had this thing called the URL and in 1991, the web was born. And this was the first ever web page. You can actually still go to it, it still exists. Now it looks like that, but I'll go one back. This is the first ever web server. Who created this? Who set it up? Strange guy called Tim. Super easy. Exactly, right? So this is a picture of Tim, his first web server. It was actually running on his desk. He sat on his desk and turned. And he had this sticker. It's not completely clear here, but it says this machine is a server. Do not power down. Because if you powered it down, you would take the website down. No, the website, the entire time. Exactly. The whole internet in 1999 was basically running from that single machine. And this was, well, it's a copy of it, but this is the first web page. And this is what it looked like. A little bit of information about web servers, people history, and first web page running at CERN. This is how it started. And we had this thing called HTML. Hypertext market language would be used to create our websites with it. And the first spec you can find there and it looked like this. Are there still designers here that remember HTML 2.0? Ever worked with us? Who did? Yes, there. Sure. And the great thing about HTML 2.0 is that. Tables. Ah, tableless. That's a good thing. The mighty tables. Whenever we were doing websites in Dreamweaver with mighty tables, and we were putting everything in there. Iframes. Iframes, yes. The great thing about HTML 2.0 is that it actually still works today. You can still build something in HTML 2.0 and it will still work in your browser. This website, or this page, still works. At that time everything was in capitals and looked a little bit different, but this is actually a working HTML 2.0 site. And if you go to this little URL here, you can actually find the whole history of HTML and how it has evolved over the years here. It's quite interesting to see how this living standard that we have today is constantly evolving. And it constantly evolves faster and faster. We went from a version standard, calling it HTML 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 2.0, 5.0, and now a living standard, which basically means it will constantly continue to evolve. That also makes us now front-end developers and back-end developers, basically meaning those who understand the evolution of HTML and those who became clueless. Right? I became clueless. This is as far as I go, this is it. All right, you're good. This is all great, but then you have the stable problem you were talking about, right? So you were using Dreamweaver or Frontpatch or Notepad? Dreamweaver? Are there front pages among you? Yeah, of course. Yes? Node-patterns or text-editors or Vimbers? Any Vimbers? Yes, some Vimbers there. Hardcore in the back. It's all Vim HTML, we love it. Love it. This is great, but then, you know, it's really slow. We need to find a way to build those pages faster. We need to have something we call dynamic so that we can put some sort of logic in between and it's not all static HTML we craft, but we can start doing something more dynamically. Call it the dynamolitic area. 1995. And this is where PHP comes in. In 1995, PHP FI was announced. With question, what does PHP FI stand for? Formal state. And FI? Oh, click. And the FI? Form FI, I don't know. Form simple. Form simple. Forms interpreted. So in 1994, Erasmus started working on PHP, which in the beginning was a simple CGI script he had a couple of CGI scripts for the hackers of my year. This is how we used to do these things like long ago that still work. And the problem that he was trying to solve was how can I extend my web forms and how can I easily communicate with a database? So how can I start getting data from a database and putting data into a database? That was where PHP was originally built for. That's the idea behind the language. So creating simple dynamic web applications. That's all great. And it looked a little bit like this. So I can probably zoom here in a little bit, so you see here. So this is how PHP started originally in the PHP 2 version. It's very, very much like a templating language, which was also the idea. You would be putting little scripts, little instructions in between your HTML to make it dynamic. That's the original idea. So what you see here, a method if substring from a variable. You could get an environment variable from, go back, you could get an environment variable, and you had an and if statement here, a little includes to include an additional file. Very, very much template language. Now that was not sufficient. So in 1993, in 1997, Zeef and Andy started and built PHP 3, which was the base of the model in PHP that we know today. And that looks a little bit like that. If you go back to PHP 3 script and you go back to very early WordPress, you go back to very early Joomla, this was basically what it looked like. It was getting data from a database and then at some point generating some HTML and then outputting a page. It was a mix of database calls generating HTML. Why am I getting here? Because this is the key to how PHP works and it's also the key reason why PHP isn't really good at automation. And it goes a little bit into the direction of the stateless, but there's another reason for this to our question. Yes, and it does what? It needs to wait, but you're almost there. So it goes top to bottom and each time it does an IO call, selecting the database, carrying the database, fetching the data from the database. Each time it does that, it's waiting. It's not doing anything. PHP is not an async language. It cannot do multiple things at the same time. And then when you're rendering HTML like that, that's not a problem because we need to wait until all the HTML is rendered anyway before we can send it out. Unless we do the jumping coding, things like that, it gets a little more complex there, but normally render the whole page, send it out. So this works perfectly for this use case. But when you're automating, you don't want that. You don't want to need to wait for each thing to happen. You want to have multiple things happening at the same time, which is a lot harder with default PHP. So PHP is not a async language. It's a sync language. Each IO call that you make takes time to execute and you're waiting. Okay, some points. The more database queries you represent makes, the slower the page will render it. The more data it needs to fetch, the more files it needs to reach, the slower that page will render it. So we went from making dynamic pages into something dynamic pages are great, but we don't, our customers can't edit them. We need to have something that is dynamic, that is easy to use so that a customer can easily edit our site and update it. Why is that great? That's the profit part and the fun part of the talk. Come on, guys. It basically means that you can go to the Bahamas and you need to worry about it and the customer can do the stuff, right? And then you can basically reply to your support email from the Bahamas saying, no problem, just click that button, click save and it will be all great. This is us optimizing our time, right? Being smart about it, making more profit and having more fun. Exactly, we're getting there. In essence, WordPress was not created well. It was created by Matt because he believes in everything GPL he does. He's also a really smart guy, he was optimizing his time. And the same thing for Driz, if you look at why Driz created Drupal, which was called Drop in the beginning, he was like, yeah, I don't wanna do all that work myself. Let somebody else do it, I'll let them pay me for not doing anything at all. Right? I was sitting in the meeting room earlier and I was sure there were ever two guys talking and he was like, yeah, so yeah, I'm just gonna do a little bit of support and then we're gonna tell the customer to do this and this and that, so I don't need to do it. And I was like, yeah, case in point. This is why you're working with WordPress. You don't need to do it. So there we go, 2003, WordPress was created. Making it easy, and you know all of this, making it easy to create websites and making it easy for your customers to update them. What I found very interesting is this link, 2015, where WordPress is described as a factory that makes web pages. And that's again why it's not ideal for automation because that's not the intent. The intent of WordPress is to make it easy to generate and update web pages. And that's something that PHP is really, really, really good at because it was specifically built for that but it was not really built for automation of tasks. So WordPress has a template, a web template system using a template processor. That's the core of it in a sense which in essence is the core of PHP. A little bit of HTML, some instructions in between generating HTML. Of course, in the meantime, you have built how many plugins already? 60,000 plugins. It's the same, right? 60,000 plugins to do all sorts of things which in some way have something to do with that. But a lot more too. So you went from solving that problem to solving a lot more problems at the same time. So, case in point, yes, you can use one of these to have a WordPress and there's probably a lot of good ones out there. I don't know them. I'm not a WordPress expert. But it's not always ideal. It's not always ideal because PHP isn't really built for that purpose. And you're slowly, if that automation process becomes more mission critical, are going to jump against the limitations of it. If you don't have Chrome, everybody knows a little bit about Chrome is, if you don't have Chrome, you need to go to the WordPress scheduler which is this built-in mechanism to at least do a little bit of automation. That's a very crude workaround for the problem. It works for small things, definitely. But for mission critical processes, not always. And when it starts failing, it's really, really hard to debug that part. Understanding why and where it fails. All right. If you don't agree with that, I'm happy to have a beer with you later over it. We can have a little fight and see what I can learn from you about it. But at least this is where I get it. Good. So, so now you guys conquered 40% of the internet? Yep. Yep, yeah. You guys conquered 40% of the internet? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So humble. So cute. Conquered 40% of the internet? Yes, of course we did. So it's 40% of the internet, that's a lot of size. And the great thing about so many sites is that there's a great thing about it and then it's also you can maintain all of them. So you need to have some more automation to get all that done, right? So you're now coming at a point that you have this new problem. You have so many sites and you need to automate and you just need to integrate them with other tools. So there we go. Now I want to introduce a couple of tech topics. I need to figure out how deep we're going to go here. So if I start going too deep and you start drowning, start yelling, put your hand up, please. So how do you do this? How do you automate and make systems on the internet talk to each other? How does that work? We created something for that called REST. Ever heard about it? Who knows what it is? All right, who has no clue? Not good? So what do I think? Something new. So the guy who created this is Rorty Fielding. Roy is also the founder of the Apexing Foundation. If you know that, he's one of the people that helped to create the HTTP 1.0 and 1.1 specs. So he really knows his stuff. When Roy created the REST in 2000 and he did a dissertation on it, it was called the Representational State Transfer. Meaning, how do I transfer states from A to B? Because on the internet, you don't transfer data. You transfer a representation of that data. Still following? That's the idea. If I have data in my database, right, and I render that into HTML, that HTML representation is not the actual data anymore. Because I can send that HTML around. And in the meantime, the data on my database is changing. So the representation is only valid for the time it was created. Are we still following? All right, good. So how do we solve that on the internet? We're sending data around and we add in additional information called headers, the ECDP headers. And one of those headers is called the date header, which includes the actual date that that piece of information was generated. The Representational State Transfer. We are transferring the state at a specific point in time. Basically, the internet is one big, solid state machine in that sense. All right, but that's maybe a little bit too far. So how does this work? How does REST work? What is specific about REST? What makes two systems over the internet to be able to talk to each other? Why can't you open up a web page on your browser? Connection, ACDP, what does the ACDP do? The method. A method, which method? Yeah, mostly get. Get, right? So we have a number of standardized methods that are part of the ACDP protocol and that are also described because REST is basically, it's not a protocol itself, it's a way of using the ACDP in a uniform way. That's basically what REST tries to do. It says to use it like this and if everybody starts doing it, then systems can start talking to each other. So when we have a browser, the browser will send a request to a server and the server can have resources and ACML page and image or additional information like user information, for example. It will have different methods, get, post-boot leads, and which other ones we also have for the geeks among you. Patch? Hat? Options. Options? I was also connect, but... So the most important ones are get, post, put the lead and then there's also a patch now, which is a little bit hard to explain, so I'm not gonna go there. Get basically means, tell a server to get me something. Get me some information. It could be an HTML page, it could be something else. Post means updating data. Right? And put means? Create. Create and post means? Update. Update. How is that different? Create something that doesn't exist on the receiving end. Okay, and we do that with? Post. With put? Post. Post, post. See, this is like geeks starting to like, oh my God. And then you can have this long-wided discussions over a beard. It's post. It's put. And then we have a team meeting, then we go, yeah, we should do this with put. It should be post. And nobody seems to agree, but you're almost there. So, post is done against a URL that doesn't exist yet. I can post against a collection. I can say articles. I can post, yeah, slash articles. All right, that. So this is me going a little bit geeky for the geeky guys here. I'll take one more minute and then we're gonna be back on track with the less geeky stuff.  So you have articles, like this. I can do a post against this to add an article. Right? If I have articles one, I would. You usually just take one for one. If I do a post against this, an article one doesn't exist.


పధానోిపిలాకిసికొచి.  The five police officers who came up with their presence when the dead man Amazingly slowness came. They have beenкими dhikar 에a carrying physically and bodily wounds since the death. The hands ofzet, the boots are a process of death when the wounded are held while responding to the same they were tortured. She Daghthwa qu !s Standage is on their ༼ pasar Ṣ § Ṭ


Yeah, give me a second. Let me vendor some more stuff and then we got to go Yeah, I'm ready to go man. Like I'm I'm ready to pop off. Yeah, this is gonna be fun I just get I only really need one stack NH if you have one stack.  Yeah Yeah, exactly. Thank you dude. I see like this just give me one stack crosses I like I don't have backspace are the griffons bugged out somebody said they were Thank you crosses, okay Let's go guys. We're about to go into zg. It's water boys and girls Champions and heroes of the Alliance are we ready to step foot into the altar of the blood guard Hakaar and slay him to save Azeroth once and forever. Yes, and we're going to remove AIDS from Azeroth the corrupted plague There were corrupted blood will not plague Azeroth because we're going to stop it here on the private test room That's right on the public test room rather. All right guys everybody head on over to the flight master. Wait, we don't have the buff We didn't do on you. Oh, yeah, let's do the buff. Let's do the buffer quick. Come back everybody come back Let's turn in on a buff We all grouped up over here. We've got out of doing it We have way too many consumes This is slightly better than my original raid team that I had my mom record me with my video camera that used To have cassettes of me doing Hakaar back in 2006 I literally had her sit behind me and record my computer screen whenever I did Hakaar dude You know what I used to do I I would play n64 games like Star Fox, and I had a VHS or a VCR And I would record my Star Fox and my n64 games and get another 10 dots Unbelievable yeah, I used to do so like that all the time dude, and I would go back and watch it And I like I don't know why I was just like it was weird. I would just watch it to myself I wouldn't show it to anybody else like watching your own vods. Yeah, I was like watching my own vods No, Bozak. I told you to run back Bozak didn't get the ball. Okay. We've got it. Who cares? Okay, let's just let's get out of here dude. Are you serious Bozak? I told you to run back Doesn't matter. Let's go. This is the first testing phase of ZG world first ever ever in the history of the life Nobody has done this before nobody has ever done this. Okay. Let's go to duskwood everybody three two one go I'm gonna just go to duskwood. We're about to get the world first wipe as well Yes, nobody has ever done this so here's the thing with testing ZG We both kind of share the same opinion on this It's kind of weird that they're allowing this and it's not like NDA or something having the testing out there But I do think it's good overall that they're willing to test rates because I think that it shows that they're willing to adjust The stuff as needed right? I think BWL was pretty good I think there was a couple things that should have been adjusted great There's nothing really wrong with BWL like there's a nefarious and flying bug but like who cares here's how I felt about BWL it's like a small handful of things like I think if they had the hour despawn timer on veil It probably would have been good because that's an iconic thing of the fight now They got rid of it before 1.12, but I didn't even know that that's like a big like iconic thing with veil that people would remember It's like oh it despawns after like an hour. Yeah, I was hearing about that actually yeah So nobody knew how it works, but they got rid of that in classic I thought I just felt like chromagus and nef both they were a little bit too weak I felt like they didn't do enough damage and they took too much damage just a little bit like not that much I think other than that I felt really good about BWL fire ma was perfect the first half of the rate was perfect But everybody knows like the rest of the drink the other two drinks are kind of easy And then chromagus is usually the wall like for people it had the chromagus To get a good chromagus was so easy I never did chromagus back in the day.  You had to figure something. I I told my my group I was like cuz whenever you're in rage. I'm like, okay. If I if I go under 50 I'm gonna use last stand. I never went under 80 We're almost done duping you guys don't need to dupe a thousand flasks for ZG. We're gonna be fine We're not gonna be in here for 50 hours guys. Come on. Everybody's trying to dupe their characters Everybody's obsessed dude you give them an inch and they take a mile every single time. It's like this Okay, let's work on everybody who's not here who's still in Charmin bozzak walk back on please This is dumb. This is more important than ZG right now. I gotta go get the tabard, right? Okay, drop a portal for S1.  It's insane How much of the raid did you get to watch last night dude the whole time all I was doing was waiting to watch you do Go on and I saw it and how insane was that you didn't even go under? 60% I'm pretty sure and I had aggro on everything. Did you even have a stone shield on no? I don't think you did I had aggro on everything the healers like they popped off too But like no man, that's not what it was paladins have a really high block and you're doing a lot of reflect damage, too Like you're probably doing like 300 dps. I was doing an insane amount of damage. I got number one parse for paladins It's like cheating because I have a thunder fury, right? It's it's so good double proc rate and everything that I miss Oh, it's the icon color is very important. The tablet is very important. Yeah, like I don't think that I can really I think it was a very honestly. I feel like I'm like the only guy now on the server doesn't have one I was ripping aggro for warrior tanks like I mean they could just taunt it back, right? But yeah, the threat gen was nuts. Oh a nixia. Did you see a nixia? I had full aggro in Phase three phase three as soon as it dropped the head aggro nice except summon Thank God. All right. Are we good? Yeah now now this looks good. Wait. Is that white wait? What hold on? It's ruin renamed the scoped crusade dude Let's just go it's fine. It was yellow. Was it not yellow? I'm colorblind. Okay.  I'm in the clouds. Why I don't know. Okay Is this an anime scene?  How do we get here? It's not a week. Okay. I'm not a weeb Okay, I'm not a weeb, but I'm very excited. We're doing ZG on the PTR. It's gonna be interesting It's probably gonna be some bugs. She listen ZG right now me as we've got some crusade people We've got some other people in here.  It's gonna be very exciting Nobody has ever done this raid before. Okay ever in the history of ever. This is a world-first experience Mm-hmm not 15 years ago. That definitely didn't happen. This is the first time right now. So let's enjoy oceans use your flasks Use everything you've got and then we'll be ready to go. I have one flask of supreme power Do we have a supreme wizard?  Look at this dude consumes in game consumes in real life That's what it's all about dude. I gotta already got it. Look guys. I know I'm doing keto Okay, we're gonna push a little bit. I don't want to summon this guy. I'm like we already told them like eight times Didn't you need to be here? Mm-hmm Mmm consumes in real life boom. Yeah, these mobs are pretty like these are mids moms are pretty easy We're just kind of like coasting through this I would not be a post of them tuning up some of the content heroic CG No, not I'm not saying multiple game modes, but I am saying Mythic Zeep short Let's go let's do the snake boss first That's why I figured okay off the snake boss the snake boss drops a really good hit cloak It's the second hit cloak that you can get in the game The first one drops off of as a ghost and it's really difficult to get the Poisson capes This donation is for as many I want to get the first donation he got when he came back Thanks, so This is your turn to shine. Okay, I think it's because they do a range cast.  Okay, dude. I'm taking I'm gonna get a ton of aggro. I got him. I got him. I got him Ready look at all this boom boom boom. Yeah, I can't cleanse myself. I'm using too many globals So I need a poison cleanse don't challenging shout them Please because you're gonna screw up our healers both of those guys just fine I know I might even be able to tank all four honestly Do you want to try I kind of want to try to tank all four of that The Cobra's do a I believe an ALE poison So if you were to do that there'd have to be like some really tricky line of sight Yeah, we did sheep them on private. Yeah, you sheep two of them. Let's go with the sheep square and sheep moon And I'll get skull and X together that sounds good. Okay, so fokin. Why don't you just go ahead? I'm gonna go ahead and pull Yeah, let's do it. Yeah, okay. Let's go give me a second to get some threat. Give me a second Give me a second get some threat. I got to move them away from the sheeps Don't don't just pop off already dead. Oh dude. These guys are way. Okay. Let's let's get them all dude This is a joke the other one. This is done today, please. Okay. It's done.  Yeah, there's a hit ring This is a nice hit ring Blooddress mess. Let's do the bat boss. Well, get that helmet dude 2% hit ZG Gives a lot of really good items for people who are new to the game who are able to raid with other guys Who maybe have been doing stuff and they're trying to get the enchants This is not why classic is designed so well for new players coming in I mean dude that was like miserably easy like I understand it's like okay It's not supposed to be so hard you guys are geared But I think anybody can agree that that was miserably easy the ads just melted We didn't even need to see how fast that first one die like two seconds. Yeah, dude. It was dumb Like I was I was trying to wait till they move out of the sheep. I'm pulling these guys Yeah, I'm pulling that right now. That's fun. Yeah full BWO raid gear What do you mean full bit dude BW has been out to we've done two BWOs What do you mean full BWO raid gear guys? You know my guild did to me What they made a fair loot system while I was gone and now I don't get all the gear That's kind of sucky.   They still do a lot of damage I was worried the damage wasn't gonna be high enough, but it was 5,300 damage. So yeah, that's good So as many a great friend as when it's so good to hear him. It was melsey gets me. Yeah, as when you're doing great He's gonna come start streaming soon. I'm fine man. Yeah, I just Need some time off. That's all. Yeah, everybody needs a break sometimes here I'm gonna go ahead and pull these guys. I'll just let you lead with all these posts Okay, does anybody have grenades I can pull with grenade.  No good. Okay literal grenade. God. There you go, dude That's what I'm talking about. All right. I'm moving in. I'm a pole. Let's do it Okay, give me a second to get aggro. I'm good. Oh, it is a magic effect. Yeah, so can I get a cleanse on that please? It's gonna be bombs here. Oh doesn't she drop aggro. She does drop threat. There's a threat drop. I got it I got it. I forgot about that Jekyllix crusher nice little weapon look at that It's a good weapon for somebody who's just hitting level 60 fresh look at that Jekyllis crusher band of servitude Yo, hey, I actually want this now for tanking So a roll if you need if you chat or not chat raid if you guys need anything just roll on it I mean it doesn't matter like it's just for fun. Yeah anything that you need go ahead and roll on not chat No chat chat. You're not in the raid. You're not allowed to roll.  They didn't do anything and they want everything What do who do they think they are? Are you guys streamers? So I'm gonna explain this real quick Let's me Kings does 60 threat and to each person that it's cast on so if I have greater blessing of Kings That means 60 times however many people on the group So if I'm hitting our warriors with it one two three four five in a 20 man raid It's less than a 40 man read but you go 60 times five four. What is that? 300 threat also you have 1.9 threat modifier So it's really it's 60 times 1.9 then times five, which is you're looking at what is that? So really you're looking at five seven.   Why don't you go ahead and open up on on tanking this boss because He does a stun and so you can always bop yourself out of it. Yeah, I'll probably open with a fat Let me go ahead and consume So why don't you go ahead and tank her in the front and I'm gonna stay by the casters because she does a I think she does an aggro drop and I'll just pick her up as soon as she runs to the casters Yeah, and she also is an AoE thing so make sure that we're at a 20 yard range at least I'll just tank her on the steps. Okay. I'm gonna fap on the ball three two one everybody ready in point Actually, you know, she's someone's add to probably better if you were fine Okay, go for it boys. Yeah, I don't know why aggro's bug they should foking having way more threat than me But I had aggro the whole time. All right. Well, that was a joke. Those are tormented from a car you bloodstained greaves It's probably think viable if you don't have thunder fury when fury thunder fury like you can do it It's just different right warrior tanks in general are better But I think with a thunder fury it kind of changes your class. Okay, let's go ahead and okay Look at dude.   Okay. Of course the rogue a dude. Let me tell you what dude freakin bozic. Are you kidding me? Look bozic.   Not even DPSing. You got to be kidding me Is that your Lambo as well?  I let him use it Okay, okay, which viewership is gonna be down. Honestly It's because so does stop streaming classic because as it's been taking a break Obviously while viewership is gonna be down. I think there's a good amount more people playing retail Well, but classic is gonna always like kind of ebb and flow based on it's like content patches and everything Yeah Well, we're getting cues on Fairlina again in my opinion on Fairlina the server population at least the overall population is like Perfect to where you have a tiny cue on Tuesday a prime time and then the rest of the time There's no cues that means you have a good strong like healthy server a strong population and you don't have to sit through cues Okay, guys That's fine. You want to go in you want to open with the free action so you don't uh, don't get hit by the couch Oh, gosh, I think still hits through reaction. All right sounds good And I'll get I'll get the call Look at that. So he doesn't knock back if I remember right it's gonna.  It's gonna come back to me. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah Hard to get it off me. Yeah kills that yeah kills that guys kills that you're all You're all targeting the wrong guy these guys need to die at the same time guys Lorcan and Zath need to die at the same time because I think they I think they keep resing I'm trying to remember this, but I'm pretty sure that's what happens. I did I farm this for two years I forgot about that. Yeah, you have to kill them at the same time. I've completely forgotten to I don't don't kill the call. Just stop. We'll let all of them come back up. Yeah Wait, wait, stop DPS.   Very good I wonder if it puts us out of combat for a second before he comes back as a tiger I like I am out of mana. I am burned. Stop damage guys. Hold on wait wait on DPS Foking go pick up the ads. Okay. I need to lay on hands myself. He has a charge Okay, I wonder if the charge of the threat drop Wait, what why do the rolls not come up? Did you change it as man? You change it to master looter on PTR for the mount Are you serious as man? Even on the PTR you're that Mount Hungry, dude Unbelievable. Well, no, it was just okay. What is that dude? It literally doesn't matter.  Well, no, but he's gonna ninja that who cares if they win it Unbelievable, dude Who cares? I mean it might as well be me, right? Okay, dude.  It might as well, dude. I'm freaking believable Dude, are you ready for the hate? Asman gold puts ZG PTR run on master loot. He tried to ninja. It's like dude. There it comes This right, I think the totems mind control people so we kill the totems and We can see see the people are mind-controlled like stun them or something and then other than that I think we should be good and then he randomly teleports people into that pit. So all right, okay, I'll go ahead and pull Threat turn damage in there.   Oh Yo, look at that cloak block chance the events better than my my defensive flow All right boys. I'm for her car. Okay. We can go up here. Reeve off redo. Whatever we need to do Don't go into the just stay on the wood. Don't get on the 60 hours a week. Yeah, dude exactly sublime. Sorry. I looked at up the first boss now I mean, I'm not worried at all after we just deleted him I don't think this is gonna be an issue.  Where are all our healers dead? Hold on one second. I like we gotta listen listen listen listen, okay? We wiped in ZG We got a little bit overconfident. Okay, if I want to be ready to tank black wing layer as a prop paladin We got to be on the ball. Okay, we got a pop consumes. We got to pay attention We got to get heels out We got to follow the cornucopia of mechanics that are involved in classic wow rating because if I want to Kill this guy one of these weeks.  It's not right We got a focus. We got to pay attention. This is very very serious very hardcore I want everybody to give maximum effort like they've never given effort before in anything not just wow not just rating in life Watch this one two. There you go. Okay, you're welcome because I'm emceed so somebody else needs to pick it up Yeah, I'm destroying everybody dude. I attack so fast with a thunder fury. Oh Dude, we've got it now you stay on and we alternate. Okay, perfect. Perfect. Now. Okay, so now I got it perfect Okay, I want to we get my throat back. Okay. I got it back. I got it back.  I'm sorry dude. Relax, dude.  Oh bubbling for a second. Okay, I took it Foking you should be second on threat here. I'll shield wall if I need to but I shouldn't need to I just kill boss After an XMC, I'm gonna just show off. All right. Here we go boys Good. There we go. Very good first war blade of the Hikari heart of a car and Urabashi Dwarf destroyer. There you go.  Hold on. Can we get a portal to iron forage? Let's get a portal iron forage quick. It's gone. It's gone. Oh, dude. Oh Maybe tomorrow screenshots. Okay world first world first I don't know what's actually world first, but uh, no a group just they beat us to about like five minutes Yeah, but they don't count world first everybody look at that Yeah, it's gonna three two one everyone smile cheese. There you go. We turned around Unbelievable metaphor for his entire performance in the raid unbelievable. Let's go turn in this heart of a car And not everybody's past. There we go. There it is. Okay. There we go. Thank you, Fooch We can go turn this in a second. Yeah, okay, so here's what we're gonna do first thing We're gonna do guys is we're gonna use the heart of a car. Okay guys heart of a car The heart of a car burns from within although the soul flayer is defeated the kernel of his power yet remains in this cursed organ Bring the heart of a car to Malthor On your Jamba aisle spell power do get the spell power one I'm going to increases your spell damage by up to 204 and your healing by up to 408 for 20 seconds Every time you cast a spell the bonus is reduced by 17 spell damage and 34 healing Yeah, this is a big boy trinket a lot.  So if you drop that So just sit there with consecration. That's 200 spell power. I believe That it's gonna be good because I do cast stuff, but I don't spam cast stuff So it's not gonna drop that much


Hi, and welcome to the session. Let's discuss the following question. The question says, solve the following inequality graphically in two-dimensional plane. Before solving this question, we should know that a line divides the Cartesian plane into two-half planes. And the graph of inequality will be one of the half planes. And we shall show the solution by shading in the corresponding half plane. We shall follow the following rules to identify the half plane represented by an inequality. According to the first rule, we have to take any point a v not on the line. And then we have to check whether it satisfies the inequality or not. If that point satisfies the inequality, then the inequality represents that particular half plane containing the point. But if the point does not satisfy the inequality, then the other half plane represents the solution. According to the second rule, if we have a sign of equality with inequality, then line is included in the solution region, and so we draw a dotted line. And according to the third rule, if we have a pure inequality, then the points on the corresponding line are not to be included in the solution region, and so we draw a dotted line. With the help of these three rules, we will solve this question. So always remember these rules. Now, we can put the solution. Given inequality is y plus 8 is greater than equal to 2x. Now, this implies y minus 2x is greater than equal to minus 8, and this implies 2x minus y is less than equal to 8. So this means y plus 8 greater than equal to 2x is equal into 2x minus y less than equal to 8. Now, converting this inequality into equation, we get 2x minus y is equal to 8. Now we have to plot the graph of this equation. For plotting the graph, we need at least two solutions of this equation. So let's first find the two solutions of this equation. When x is equal to 0, then y is equal to minus 8, and when y is equal to 0, then x is equal to 4. So the two solutions of this equation are 0 minus 8 and 4, 0. Now we will plot these two points on the graph. So let's make a graph now. The two points which we have to plot are 0 minus 8 and 4, 0. Now, the first point is 0 minus 8. This means when x is i is 0, then ordinate is minus 8. So this is the required point, 0 minus 8. Second point is 4, 0. This means when ordinate is 0, then if c is 4. So this is the required point, 4, 0. According to the second rule, we know that if sign of equality is there with the inequality, then the line is included in the solution region, and so we draw a dark line. Now in this question, we have y plus 8 is greater than equal to 2x. The sign of equality is there, so this means we will join these two points by a dark line, and this line will be included in the solution region. So let's now join these two points by a straight line. Now this line is representing the equation 2x minus y is equal to 8, which is equivalent to y plus 8 is equal to 2x. This line is dividing this plane into two half planes, that is 1 and 2. Now we have to identify the half plane represented by the given inequality. According to the first rule, we have to select a point which does not lie on the line, and then we have to check whether it satisfies the inequality or not. If the point satisfies the inequality, then the inequality represents that particular half plane containing the point. But if the point does not satisfy the inequality, then the other half plane, that means the half plane which does not contain the point, represents the solution. As the point 0, 0 does not lie on this line, so we can take the point as 0, 0. Now substitute this point in the given inequality by substituting x i 0 and y i 0. We get 0 less than equal to 8, which is true of plane containing 0, 0 represents the inequality x minus y is less than equal to 8, which is equivalent to y plus 8 greater than equal to 2x. Now look at the graph. Now the first half plane contains the point 0, 0. So this means the solution region of the given inequality consists of first half plane. And since we have equal to sign in the given inequality, so this means this line is also included in the solution region. Let's now shade this region. This is the recoup. So the shaded half plane first, including the line, is the required graphical solution of y plus 8 greater than equal to 2x. This is our required answer. So this completes the session. Bye and take care.