to think tech. I'm Jay Fidel. This is Global Connections and today we're going to talk about Australia, New Zealand and that area of the world with Carl Baker, who is Senior Advisor Pacific Forum. So welcome to the show, Carl. I think there's a lot to cover here. And in fact, people aren't covering it enough. So good for us. Sure. And it's good to be back. And it's always fun to talk about Australia, New Zealand and the rest of Oceania or the Pacific, whatever we want to use the term, whatever term we want to use today. But it's certainly an important part of the world that does tend to get forgotten. I guess antipodes is sort of a moniker that sticks and has some resonance today, given that even though we're not British, we still tend to forget that there's another side to the world. In a funny way, it's the most remote place of the civilized world. It's way down, way south, and it's very, very, very remote. And I told you before the show that it reminded me of On the Beach with Gregory Peck, 1959 Black or White movie where he commands an American submarine and it is completely remote. And they don't know what happened to the U.S. and this is after a nuclear war. And so this is the most remote part of the world for a nuclear submarine. And that's the experience in a sictitious scenario. But it does emphasize how far away Australia, New Zealand really are in so many ways. And yet when you think about what the Americans today are talking about, the Indo-Pacific is very much central to that part of the world. It's the Indian Ocean, the nexus between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. And hence, I think, why it still matters to the United States. Oh, it's got to, because it's in the periphery of China. And China is, what do I say, our most effective, most advanced competitor. Would you agree with me, Carl, that our interest in that area, our interest in being in the Quad, in bringing those countries into our national security, global security effort, is based largely around China? Sure. I think it is. I mean, the whole idea of expanding the focus from Asia-Pacific to Indo-Pacific, I think, is part of an effort to sort of broaden the security picture, to force China into recognizing that the Americans have influence in a much broader area than just the Asia-Pacific. And we actually extend our influence and interest into the Pacific Ocean. Now, I think what has surprised the United States is, first, the willingness of the Chinese to engage in the Pacific Islands. For so many years, the United States just always kind of considered the Pacific Islands as captive territory for the United States, with the Compact of Free Association, with Micronesia, Palau, and Marshall Islands, that we just sort of felt that that was ours, and we somewhat neglected those countries. And including in Melanesia, the Solomon's, and Valoatu, and Tuvalu, we sort of neglected those countries. And I think as China saw that as an opening, the United States sort of recognized that, ooh, maybe we shouldn't be quite so confident that this is really our backyard and going to remain our backyard. So what you've seen over the last couple of years is we've reinstated embassies in some of those small countries. We've certainly shown more interest. We've certainly hustled to get the Compact of Free Association agreements finished. And I think that there's a recognition that there is competition for the interests of those countries. And so the last show we did, we talked a little bit about this. And I don't think it's just purely on the part of Chinese. I don't think it's purely security interests. It's our military security interests, as much as it is economic interests. I think that it's fair to say that there are economic interests for China in the South China Sea, or I'm sorry, in the South Pacific. There's a lot of fish out there. There's a lot of resources in the Pacific Ocean that are legitimate targets for Chinese interests. So I don't want to portray it as purely a military security sort of competition. It's also an economic competition. And that's where I think the United States gets nervous, because we don't do economic competition as well as we do military competition. So true. So I think you spell that with an M, by the way, manganese. M stands for manganese. Someday there'll be a song about manganese. It's all down there. And we build more cell phones, more computers, more exotic electronic equipment. We need rare materials like that. And it's down there at the seabed. And they are way ahead of us. They are way ahead of us in fishing, too, I might add. But you're right. And the problem is that it's hard to... Are we matching them stroke for stroke in this competition? Or is this ketchup? Because to me, it sounds like ketchup. They already have a significant presence in Fiji. I know that. We've had a show about that. And they have a significant presence, developing even a more engaged presence with the Solomon Islands right now, in the subject of some news. So they are reaching east across all of these areas. And I agree that it's largely, what do you want to call it, economic, but it also extends their security, doesn't it? Sure, it does. And don't forget, the other player here is Taiwan. Because there were several Pacific Island countries that had maintained the relationship with Taiwan. Now, you can say that it was because Taiwan was feeding them money. And it was really a competition between China and Taiwan for who was going to provide the best economic package to some of these countries. And to some extent, that's true. But it was also Taiwan recognizing that there's a lot of resources out there and that it was an opportunity for them to maintain some diplomatic ties with countries that are part of the United Nations. So China wouldn't say that we're really playing ketchup as much as we are recognizing that China is catching up. And so I think that's the difference. So again, going back, we were so confident that we didn't have to do anything that we sort of let it deteriorate. And now we're recognizing that we do need to do something. So it's not so much catching up as realizing that China is catching up. Well, let me add some thoughts and see how you feel about this. Number one is, Barack Obama was doing the pivot. But the pivot didn't last that long as such, because we wound up pivoting shortly thereafter to the Middle East and Europe, which is where we're spending a lot of time and money, not enough in my opinion, but we're spending a lot of time and money there. And so we haven't really been as engaged in the West Pacific, the South Pacific as perhaps we should have been. And so the pivot is like old already. The other thing is that the Quad is kind of old too. The Quad is not a picture of excitement and heavy collaboration. The U.S. is the center of it and it holds it together. But why only four of them? Why not other countries too? Why doesn't the U.S. bring in others? And when you ask the members, they say, this is a very loose association. This is not like NATO or anything like that. We're just sort of hanging out together. And so this gives me a certain level of concern that the Quad and the pivot are old news. Well, I mean, the pivot, I would agree. I think the Quad is an evolution. But to me, the Quad is mostly about figuring out how we can integrate India into our defense posture in the broader region, again, called the Indo-Pacific. I think that's the real motivation behind the Quad. Back in the early 2000s, it was the idea that these are four democracies that can work together, including India as one of the big democracies. And this was really Shinzo Abe back in 2007 that sort of tried to start the Quad. I think the Quad has new residents, but not so much about the context of the pivot as it is in the context of the recognition that we need allies and partners to deter, if you will, China. So I think that's really what the Quad is about. But what we've seen, I think, let's just say post-Trump administration in the Indo-Pacific region. Now, Trump is the one that actually started the idea of the Indo-Pacific, or it started during Trump's administration. But what Biden has done with it is he has really, I think, focused the attention on broadening the partnerships in Asia to the extent that we now no longer say United States is dominant. So in some ways, I have to disagree with your characterization of United States driving the Quad. The idea behind the Quad is to get buy-in from Japan, Australia, and India for the defense cooperation in Asia and the Indo-Pacific broader, because I think the United States recognizes it can't do it by itself. So in some ways, the current version of the Quad is a reflection of the recognition in the United States that it needs help to actually deter China in that region. Do they see us as strong as they used to see us? I mean, I'm thinking that we really haven't backed up Taiwan enough. Although I read that Biden is offering some huge multi-billion-dollar incentive to the Taiwan semiconductor company, SMC, TMSC, and I say to myself, gee, I hope the Chinese don't invade and take all that over. We lose the investment. Well, the news of today is that he's providing that money for them to build a third fabrication plant in Phoenix. So not to worry. I'm feeling better. I'm feeling better. Thank you. As soon as the better, they do that. But anyways, so we haven't really defended and shown support of Taiwan as much as they wanted. I thought we were moving a lot of troops into either Okinawa, maybe away from Okinawa. There were troop movements. Guam was it, and we were moving into Pearl Harbor from the mainland, and we were building our security forces, our military in the Pacific. But I'm not sure that that actually happened yet. And maybe we're spending more time in Europe and the Middle East. What do you think? Well, yes, we are. But we're also building the relationship with Australia. I think that's where the real change is occurring, is that we're much closer with Australia now, with putting that marine training area in Darwin. We're doing a lot more rotations into fighter aircraft bombers and just ship visits and all that sort of stuff into Australia. So there's a much more robust defense relationship between the United States and Australia, you know, including, let's talk about AUKUS, you know, with providing a very, very controversially providing nuclear submarines to a non-nuclear weapons state, Australia, which is significant because that basically gives them the technology to develop nuclear weapons. Not that Australia is going to do that, or at least we don't think they are, but I mean, it's a dramatic change in the mindset in the United States. And again, I think that all goes back to the effort to integrate Australia at least into this broader deterrence package that the United States sees necessary as China develops its influence in the region. But part of that package is a very interesting piece that I saw. And it's about how the United States is asking Australia to manufacture weapons in Australia for use in Ukraine to give the Ukrainians or sell whatever the case may be. And I find that a very interesting kind of global connection, if you will. The U.S. likes to think that it can manufacture more than before, but here it's asking Australia to manufacture. And to the extent that somebody has to pay for that, the money for the manufacture, the manufacturing, winds up in Australia, not in the U.S. So, I guess you make policy only to make exceptions to policy. Well, yeah, but I think, again, that that's part of that recognition that the United States is finding it important to have strong partners. And of course, Australia has traditionally been that strong partner in Asia. So, what happened to New Zealand? I can hardly tell the difference when they talk to me. I mean, if you have a fine ear, you can probably tell one from the other, but usually I cannot do that. And I like them in terms of their personalities and their social skills, but they're really different in terms of diplomatic relations and national policy, aren't they? Yeah, sure. They are, although they're both fairly dependent economically on their relationship with China. I mean, when you look at New Zealand, they do probably twice as much trade with China as they do with the United States. And over the past couple of years, Australia has realized how economically dependent it's become on China for providing raw materials. From New Zealand, it's mostly agriculture products from Australia. It's mostly mining and resources of rares and whatever. They're mining out of the outback in Australia. So, both of them are fairly dependent on China in terms of their economic well-being. But there's a difference. I'd like to say, we've got a difference, but there's a difference. You know, they don't feel the same way about nuclear weapons, for example. They're not in the Quad. And why not? Well, they're not in the Quad. More importantly, although we talk about the ANZUS Treaty, we don't consider New Zealand, the United States, does not consider New Zealand as a treaty partner. Because in 1986, they said that we are a nuclear-free country, which means you and your nuclear submarines are not welcome in our waters. And so in 1986, the United States broke off that relationship. And so to this day, now there's talk just in the last months that there's a push to integrate New Zealand back into that defense relationship. And I think that there has been movement over the last couple of years where New Zealand is now much more of a defense partner than it was, say, 10 years ago. So, they now regularly participate in the RIMPAC exercise here in Hawaii. They've established a consul general here in Hawaii. So, you know, so they're making these moves. And mostly the consul general is really for the purpose of better coordination within the backup. Moving to India. India is a democratic country. It's almost as big, or maybe now it's bigger than China in population. It's very prosperous in many ways. It's got, of course, as old democracies, it's got social issues and problems. And right now, it seems to have leadership problems in terms of Modi moving to the right, slightly more autocratic than he was at the outset. And he's got a very kind of, what do I say, erratic, charismatic style that may be good for India, but it may not be good for alliances and his relationship with the U.S. Not sure how that's unfolding. Not sure why he is with the Quad. Why the Quad is with him. But it sounds like he's a kind of iffy member of the Quad. What do you think? Well, certainly they have been the outlier in terms of the relationship because Japan, United States, and Australia have other partnerships. They have the trilateral, literally the U.S.-Japan-Australia trilateral that has been in existence for some time. They certainly are better aligned than with India because India does have a strong defense relationship with Russia. It's dependent on Russia for its military equipment for some time, partly just historically. They've been friends with the Soviet Union and then subsequently with Russia. And so they have a lot of Russian military equipment. Russia, or I'm sorry, India and Australia haven't always gotten along real well. There's been a bit of animosity for whatever reason between India and Australia. So there's a history of why India is much more independent. India has always been sort of the biggest proponent of the Group of 77 or the non-aligned movement. So it's always resisted developing a stronger relationship with everyone, including the democracies that we're talking about. So I think for all those reasons, yeah, India continues to be the outlier. But I think, as I said earlier, the United States and increasingly Australia and Japan recognize that India is becoming an important partner in developing a deterrence network in the Indo-Pacific region, the broader Indo-Pacific region, to deter China. Yeah. What I hear, though, is that the Quad is really not devoted to military security. Right. And also that China is very good at, what do we call it, trade diplomacy. In other words, you have a lot of trade with the country, as such as you mentioned, with New Zealand. And that brings you closer. And that's the way they enter its relationships. That's the way they get closer to all countries that way. And who could complain? I mean, we should be doing the same thing, actually. So you wonder how solid the Quad is. You wonder how influential the U.S. is among these countries, because China's working competitively against us. And because we can't really control, it's not like NATO. It's not like there's a section five of mutual self-defense. I'm not sure where it all goes. How far can you go with an organization that is not NATO, that doesn't have mutual self-defense, but is nevertheless interested in mutual security? But deterrence is your word. Yeah. I'm going to continue to use that word, because that's a very American word. India and Australia and Japan aren't quite as convinced that deterrence is the best policy. And that's why they hold out this economic relationship with China as something that influences how they interact with China. And so what you're seeing now is after China basically cut off Australia, Australia has backed away from some of its more strident advocacy for stronger deterrence, because China has resisted it. And so the economic relationship with China is going to continue to play a part. And I think that's what Secretary Yellen has acknowledged in her trip to China, is that you cannot ignore that economic relationship. The United States can't, and certainly when you look at Australia, India, and New Zealand, they can't. They can't simply ignore the fact that China is a huge economy and that it is a center for economic well-being in that part of the world. Let's talk about Japan. Japan may be one of our most, I don't know, connected countries. Because of the war, because of what happened after the war, because of their development since the war. And because we get along with the Japanese in large part, calling it citizen diplomacy. But the fact is that they're building up their military, they're spending money on that. They're trying to tell China that they're serious and did not to be trifled with. Their economy may not be as good as it was a few years ago. Their bell curve shows that the population is actually declining. So, Query, where does Japan fit in this? Are they a leader in the Quad? Are they a leader among the, what do you want to call it, the democracies, the enlightened countries of our influence in Asia? Are they going to be more or less in the future? I think they're going to be more in Asia. And in fact, while they're an important security partner, military security partner with the United States, they're a huge economic partner for everybody in Asia. And I think that that's where Japan has shown real leadership. Is they're the ones that after the United States walked away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, they're the ones that really work to get the comprehensive and progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership back in shape. And so now you have Australia, New Zealand, and some of the Southeast Asian countries that are now promoting this CPTPP and China is knocking on the door trying to get in. So I think that Japan has been very successful in demonstrating and providing economic security leadership in Asia along with its development programs, along with its investments in the region, and it's promoting free trade agreements in the region. So I think Japan has very much stepped up in basically in a vacuum that the Americans left when they walked away from the TPP. Interesting. So here now I have a comprehensive question for you. We have Joe Biden, who is troubled domestically, who is troubled in terms of defending and supporting Ukraine, who is in a constant contention with Netanyahu about Israel, who is in a growing contention with the proxies of Iran. I mean, these are complicated problems. Any one of those would take the whole State Department to figure it out. And he's got it every day. And on top of that, he's running for office. And on top of that, he's got Southeast Asia and he's got the Quad. And this whole area with Australia, New Zealand. I don't know how one individual leader can do all of that.  One captain navigates the ship and the other pays attention to the passengers. It's almost like they should have two presidents. One who navigates the country and the other pays attention to the passengers. But we don't have that. He's going to have to do it all. And the oxygen is being sucked out of the room. Furthermore, as one of our hosts said, Donald Trump is looking like a president to be. And he's talking like a president to be taking positions on international issues and trying to upstage Biden. So you have a confusion as to who is really speaking and going to speak for the country. Here we are about six months away from an election that could turn the whole thing upside down. And these countries, Australia, New Zealand, other countries are in and around the Quad. They know that. They're watching like a hawk. How does all of that affect them? Not an easy question. Well, let me start off with a somewhat snide answer. We have the Vice President. Thank you. More importantly, I think that what the Biden administration has done is it's made it more difficult for the United States to simply walk away from the Indo-Pacific region by working with the allies, by developing some level of multilateral interaction with these countries. I think it's made it more difficult for an incoming president to simply walk away from the Indo-Pacific and say, China, it's all yours. So I think that that's what they've done. Now, whether the Indo-Pacific economic framework is successful or not, I think it's an open question. We certainly haven't done enough on trade. But again, Japan has. Japan has kind of filled that vacuum. The United States has done IPF, the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, and at least it has put in some components of that program. And just the fact that the Quad, the AUKUS, the other relationships that we've developed with the Southeast Asian countries and certainly with Japan and improved relations between Japan, South Korea, and the United States, I think the current administration has made it more difficult for anybody to follow on and simply walk away from it. So I think that I'll say that and then I'll again give Japan credit for sort of taking up the economic piece. So if one of these countries in the Indo-Pacific should come to you, let's make you the State Department today, the whole enchilada, the whole State Department, the Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, and say, you know, Carl, we're a little concerned about what happens in this election. We don't know where we stand with Trump. We know his machinations. We see, we read the same papers you read. And we don't know what to do. How do we see this? How do we look at this in terms of the very real possibility there'll be a change in regime that will be profound in 2025? And again, I go back and say, you know, just continue to build resiliency to integrate into a broader multilateral framework that entices the United States to stay engaged economically and that build that economic framework that makes it important for the United States to stay engaged if they want to maintain the economic relationship in Asia. And because right now we're dependent on those other countries to do that. Right now, without a free trade agreement with anybody in Asia other than, you know, Japan, it's very different, or in South Korea, it's very difficult to maintain that economic relationship. So I think that that's the angle I would tell those countries to take for Australia. I think it's a little bit different. Australia just isn't a big enough economy to matter in some ways to the United States. And so their part is much more focused on security, build the security relationship with the partners that the United States has now, Japan, Philippines, to some extent New Zealand. You know, but I think that that's that's the angle that I would recommend that Australia take. There isn't a one size fits all. Japan, certainly the economic side, Australia, the security side, others find a way to force an integration of economic interests with the United States. Yeah, it was an article in foreign affairs that I saw a few days ago. It was about how you have to maintain your morality. And we haven't always done it. Sometimes we've capitulated for practical purposes, for, you know, the self interest of the United States. And of course, those are regrettable instances where we have shoved off from our own morality. But there should be, don't you think, whatever we do, there should be a fundamental level of the world, liberal world order and morality. And whatever we do with any country has to reflect that. Am I right to supply here? Well, it does apply here. And I mean, and the glaring example, of course, is while, you know, the United States wants to find the difference between what's happening in Ukraine and what's happening in Israel and Gaza, the rest of the world doesn't quite see it that way. You know, and so that's a perfect example of what is seen in the rest of the world as American hypocrisy, you know, and it extends back into history. I mean, there's, there's any number of articles that have been written about how we were friends with the South Korean regime back in the 70s and Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan. These people weren't exactly shining examples of democracy. Yeah. So now I change the facts on you. I think you've already told us what Joe Biden should do if he's reelected. But what about Trump? Well, A, what would Trump do from his remarks, his comments so far, you know, Indo-Pacific? And what should he do? What would he do? What should he do? Well, I think what he would do is, remember, he's the one that actually came up, or his administration is the, is the administration that came up with the idea of promoting this Indo-Pacific. So, you know, I think the way, the way Trump views it is big, strong military, whatever that means, it's really a marketing term for him. And so, you know, so just, just say you have a big, strong military and everything will be okay. And if China gets out of line, well, we'll, we'll threaten them with nuclear weapons or something. You know, I mean, I think that's sort of the mindset of Trump. And I don't think it goes much beyond that. What he should do, of course, is continue to do what we've been doing only integrate a better economic box. You know, it strikes me that, you know, deterrence is an interesting concept if you are the biggest kid on the block. Yeah. But if you're not the biggest kid on the block and everybody's doing escalation of weapons and preparation for war, you have the, the Barbara Tuckman Guns of August scenario where, you know, everybody gets more weaponized and in one day there's a trigger and it, it, it, everybody goes to war all at the same time. And so when the United States says, oh, we're going to be, we're going to spend a trillion dollars a year on defense, we're going to have every weapon known. I'm not sure that solves the problem in the world where there are people who are trying to outsmart us on weapons and, and prepare just as we prepare for the possibility of war, quality, deterrence or preparation either way. And that, and that with that in mind, perhaps all those determinants is really a path to war. Your thoughts? Yeah. I mean, I agree. And I mean, and that's, that's why that's sort of the, the, the emptiness of, of Trump's version of deterrence is just build more, just build more weapons and say you have a big military and you're strong and you, you, you have this aura about yourself.  Sometimes I think that, that he envisions the United States as an extension of himself. And, you know, and just, just talk big, talk, or talk like a bully and everybody will be deferential to and, you know, and that doesn't work in the world, in the world today. As you say, you know, when you've got a Russia that continues to develop its military, you've got a China that has the resources to develop a very big, strong military and have influence in the region, then that sort of deterrence, exactly. It is ultimately a self-defeating concept because deterrence only works as long as you are the biggest bully in the valley. And, and it's been, it's become very clear that we're not. And that's why I was talking about, you know, what, what the Biden administration has recognized is the importance of developing true security partners, not security partners that will tell you what to do, now go do it. It's, it's true partners who actually have a say in how we develop those plans, how we develop our, our relationship. And so, you know, that's why the economic piece becomes so important and why Japan has become such an important player because they are the, the country today that is carrying that economic mantle in Asia to integrate those Asian economies so that they're not completely dependent on China, that they have some resilience on their own. You know, an IPF plays a part of that by developing a supply chain resilience and a recognition of the importance of rules and, and, and governing green and green energy and things like that. But it takes more than just that. It takes a true partnership with all these countries to develop an economic approach that can compete with China rather than letting China be the big economic engine that, that is the focal point for everybody in Asia. And so it's not like a full-time job to me. You know, foreign affairs diplomacy has never been so complicated and nuanced and required so many relationships and the maintenance of so many connections and dealing with so many issues around the world. It's really a head ringer. And I'm hoping that whoever is in office they can handle this because the stakes are, are so high. Have you ever seen foreign affairs, diplomacy, foreign relations, all these issues so complicated as they are right now? Well, no, I haven't because, you know, because we grew up, you and I grew up in the Cold War, you know, and so we recognize that and it was, it was about security, about military security. And the economic piece was always, well, the United States is big and it can absorb any amount of goods that people can deliver. And now we're to the point where we, the Americans are limiting, we have limited resources. We recognize that we can't absorb all the product that the country, the world can grow. And so now we have to find partners who are willing to do that. And that's why China becomes important because it can absorb that, that economic growth. India can absorb that. And we have to acknowledge that, that those are becoming the areas that need to be integrated into that global economic system. And we can't, we can't limit ourselves through industrial policy by saying we're going to exclude those countries or we're going to exclude those economies. We need to figure out how to build an economic security mechanism that allows us to integrate ourselves into that economy, into that global economy. And that's, I think, the challenge. The military security, we've got that down. What we don't have down is how we develop a global economic strategy that allows us to do something other than just absorb product from it, from the rest of the world. And we can't do any of that if we're going to be isolationist. We really have to have a better narrative. Carl Baker, thank you, Carl Baker, as senior advisory to Pacific Forum. These are really great discussions and enlightening, thoughtful comments. Thank you. Thank you. Aloha. We want to announce that ThinkTech Hawaii is moving into a new phase and will not be producing regular talk shows after April 30. We will retain our website and YouTube channel and will accept new content on an ad hoc basis. We are also developing a legacy archive program to provide continuing public access to our content. If you can help us cover the costs of the transition and the development of our legacy archive program, please make a donation on ThinkTechAway.com. Thanks so much. Aloha.


What's up, everybody? So I've been getting a lot of questions from guys lately asking me, hey, Lloyd, I just got out of a divorce. How do I get myself back in the game? Hey, Lloyd, it's been a while. I haven't been with a girl for a while. It's because of COVID and lockdown situation. How do I get myself back in the game? So in this video, what I'm going to be talking about is basically that. How to get yourself back in the game, whatever is happening with you, whatever is going on with you, I'm going to tell you how to get back into the dating world and be successful because when you're coming out of it, it can be quite challenging. So the first thing I'm going to talk about are some of the general challenges that guys usually have when they're trying to get back into the dating scene or they're single or whatever the reason is. And then the second thing that I'm going to talk about are what are things you should start doing right now. They're going to get you right back in there. So let's talk about the main problems. I would say the main problems is that when you've maybe been in a relationship for a while and you've just got out of it or maybe it's just been a while for you since you've been with a woman or maybe you've never been successful with a woman. The point is right now you're not in a great spot. You feel mentally to start dating and that's okay. This happens all the time to men. There's sometimes where you walk out and you feel really good about yourself, super confident. Usually maybe you've had some past successes with women.  They can pick up on your confidence and so you smile at a girl, she smiles back.  You feel like you're in a conversation. All these women are interested in you. Things are going great. Now there are other times where things are not going great probably in this moment where you guys are if you clicked on this video where you feel like you're not getting good reactions from people. I mean like before you would be able to smile at a pretty girl and now you'll smile at kind of like the chubby girl behind the checkout counter and she'll look at you like, you're like, can't even get her to smile at me. Oh my god, what's going on? So you feel like you need some help to get yourself back into the dating world. You're not confident. You're not feeling good. This happens all the time, okay?  You know, Patrice O'Neill has a really good saying about this and when it comes to stand up if you're bombing on stage is the worst thing that you can do when you're bombing is to try to not bomb. You have to embrace it. What do I mean by this?  Who knows? Except that fact you're in the state that you are now and that's okay.  I've never done this for a while. I haven't done it for like at least six months, maybe even longer than that. Okay. Lockdown everything. When I first went out, I was nervous, dude. And like, this is my job. My job is to be able to go out and do this. And I can't freaking do it. I'm nervous. So the last thing that I can do or should be doing in this moment is pretend like I'm not nervous. Pretend like I'm not sucking. What did I do instead? I was like, okay, I'm nervous. I'm not where I used to be. That's okay. What can I do now to get myself on the pathway to do that? What's a small thing that I can do right now? Well, the small thing that I can do right now is just pick my head up, smile, say hi to people. And that's what I did. I said hi to like 50 people and maybe like 20 of them said hi back to me. 25 of them said hi back to me. And then of those 25, maybe like 12, actually smiled and like actually looked at me and said and waved.  Like, you know, I'm a dating coach and like I couldn't even get a girl's phone number. Like, no, I didn't, I wasn't down on myself for that. Like there were some girls that I talked to that just didn't want to talk to me. And then that's okay. So instead I focused on the positives. I said, hey, 12 people smiled and waved at me. So I focused on the positive things right there. And I focused on what I can do moving forward. Hey, maybe one of those 12 people would have been willing to talk to me. Maybe one of those 12, there was like about maybe like I was saying hi to guys too. So maybe like six of those six of those girls would have been down to talk to me. Okay, that's a win. That's an opportunity there. All right. So the next day when I went out, I ended up doing this, I started out with the same thing, but then I took the conversations farther and the end result was me getting like a dozen numbers and then I went on an instant date with a gorgeous, awesome woman. Okay. And then I did even better the next day on Sunday. So I didn't start out trying to make myself into the guy that I was before. I started with baby steps. I accepted the fact that I wasn't where I was and that's okay. So I started with these small goals and then worked my way up. If you're in this moment where you're trying to get yourself back in the game, the last thing that you want to think about is being that cool, awesome guy because you're not there right now.  And then if you focus on the positive, you will see yourself in a better light. Like you're going to gain a lot of confidence.   Like you're just going to be focused on the interaction. You're going to be giving her the attention she deserves and you're going to have a good interaction.  So yeah, this is what I talk a lot about. And this is something that I'm going to be talking a lot about in my approaching system that I'm going to be coming out with. So the example that I just gave you guys previously where I went out to the beach, that was actually all recorded. All of it's recorded. All of this is going to be in the approaching system. So if you want to get notified about that, there is a link in the description box below. Click on the link and you'll get notified. It should be coming out within the next month or something like that. So if you want to get access to the lowest prices for it, I highly recommend you join that. Thanks a lot, you guys. Good luck out there.


Mae'r next item of business is a debate on motion 8864, in the name of Humza Yousaf, on the coronation of King Charles III and the Queen, and I call on the First Minister to speak to and move the motion. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Just under two weeks ago, the Stone of Destiny began its journey to London for the coronation of their Majesty's King Charles and Queen Camilla. I attended the ceremony at Edinburgh Castle, which marked that occasion in my role as keeper of the Great Seam. On Saturday I represented Scotland at the coronation itself. As everyone who watched it will know, the coronation ceremony and the Padron tree surrounding it were rooted in tradition, but it is also the case that some of the traditions had been updated to reflect modern values, the inclusion of a multi-faith element. For example, in this ceremony was a particularly welcome change. That mix of the old and the new was also evident in wider celebrations. In Scotland the tenor and scale of the festivities has been different from previous coronations, but in many parts of the country people still came together to watch the proceedings live with family, with friends and indeed with neighbours. Over the past few days there have been street parties, there have been afternoon teas, there have been some special concerts and of course some religious services too. All across Scotland people have taken the time to perform acts of service in line with the coronation theme of helping out. I joined with some of them yesterday when I helped to pack food at the Whitfield community lardar. There will of course be further events later this year when His Majesty is presented with the honours of Scotland at a ceremony in St Giles cathedral. In July during royal week the Scottish Government will take the opportunity to present their majesties with coronation gifts on behalf of the people of Scotland. In doing so we will be further marking an important constitutional milestone, but we will also be symbolising the respect, the goodwill that is felt by many people in Scotland for their majesties personally. That goodwill has been built up over many years. Her Majesty Queen Camilla has spoken often about her family's own Scottish roots and indeed her affinity to Scotland. It was here where she undertook her very first public engagement, opening a school playground in Ballotar back in 2005. Since then she has forged strong ties with communities right across the country, not least in a role as Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen. His Majesty's own affections for Scotland and especially for Balmoral are well known. He too carried out his first royal duties here. In 1965 the then 16-year-old Prince Charles met students at a garden party at Holyrood palace. In the decade since he has continued to serve through his patronage of many Scottish charities and institutions and perhaps most notably of all through his work with the Prince's trust. Indeed it is his work with the Prince's trust that I particularly want to highlight in this contribution. There are, of course, varied views about the monarchy in Scotland. However, what is indisputable is the incredible work that the Prince's trust has done with young people over many years, right across the UK including, of course, right here in Scotland too. I am sure that it is true for many members. I have seen the impact of that work first hand. In 2019 I visited the Prince's trust Wilson centre in Glasgow. I had the great pleasure, the enormous pleasure of meeting some of the young people whose lives the trust have transformed. Every year in Scotland more than 8,000 disadvantaged young people benefit from support that the Prince's trust provides. Through its various programmes they get opportunities to meet new people, to learn new skills, build their confidence and as a result they receive vital help in overcoming particularly challenging barriers and of course to realising their potential. Since it was established, the Prince's trust has helped to improve the lives of many people right across the country. Its work is an important and enduring aspect of His Majesty's contribution to our society right here in Scotland. However, of course, the role that he has played in our national life goes and spans over many years. It goes well beyond the work that he has done with the Prince's trust. As Prince of Wales, His Majesty has been there for us when Scotland has faced dark times in the aftermath of Piper Alpha, the Lockerbie bombing and the Clutha helicopter crash. However, he has also shared with us many special moments from the opening of the 1988 Glasgow Garden Festival with Diana, the Princess of Wales, to the launch of COP26 when he spoke very powerfully indeed about the need for all of us to collectively tackle the climate emergency. Like his mother, His Majesty has also been a good friend to this very Parliament. He was present at our official opening in 1999. He joined us for our anniversary celebrations 20 years later and in 2021 he attended for the third time the kerking of the Parliament, the multi-faith service that we hold at the start of each new session. Last year, His Majesty addressed us in this very chamber for the first time a few days after his mother's death. He told us then that he was taking up his duties and I quote, "...with thankfulness for all that Scotland has given me, with resolve to seek always the welfare of our country and its people, and with whole-hearted trust in your goodwill and good counsel as we take forward that task together." It continues to be the case that there are different views in this chamber right across the country about the institution of the monarchy. However, the commitment His Majesty has made to serve the people is one that we all share. We have seen both their majesties demonstrate that commitment over many years. So whatever our constitutional views are, I think that it is right that this Parliament marks this moment by wishing them well. In doing so, we congratulate their Majesties, King Charles and Queen Camilla on their coronation. We thank them for their continuing service to Scotland and we commit ourselves to working with them, helping them in discharging the great responsibilities that they hold. I move the motion in my name. It is a great privilege to speak on behalf of the Scottish Conservatives, celebrating the coronation of their Majesties, King Charles III and Queen Camilla. It was an even greater privilege to witness the historic event at Westminster Abbey in person on Saturday. Just over 2,000 guests were in the abbey for the two-hour service. Our own royal family, heads of state from around the world, members of European royal families, politicians and celebrities, and there were also 450 British Empire medal recipients in the congregation. Among them were John Anderson from Fraserborough, who received his BEM in 2020 for his community work during the pandemic, and Mary Nelson from Forrest, who received her award in 2021 for the outstanding work that she did for the charity Murray Fresh Start. Scotland was also extremely well represented in the ceremony itself, with the moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Bishop of Murray, Roth and Caithness and the Lord Lion, whom I am delighted to see in the chamber with us this afternoon. On Saturday, those of us lucky enough to be in the abbey and millions across the UK and around the world were witness to the crowning of our new monarch, an event that has not happened in this country for 70 years, that reflected rituals and traditions, that in some cases date as far back as the formation of Scotland and England as nations, and included objects like St Edward's Chair and the Stone of Destiny, which have been associated with Coronations North and South of the Border for hundreds of years. For most of us, this was an event that we'd only seen in black and white footage or read about in books, and it was made real before our very eyes. Yet for all we could see the weight of history amongst the grandeur, the rising music and the pageantry of the moment, the message and the promise from the coronation ceremony and the celebrations over the weekend was a simple one. Service. Indeed, that was the theme of the very first words from the King during the coronation. Replying to Samuel Strachan, his Majesty said, I come not to be served, but to serve. Service to our country and the Commonwealth. Service to all its people, regardless of their background and faith, and service to our natural world. Through this promise, his Majesty is continuing with the ideals and values of monarchy so resolutely upheld by his late mother over the long decades of her reign. But he's also showing the vision of a modern monarchy that he intends to lead. As he said on the day after he became monarch, wherever you may live in the United Kingdom or in the realms and territories across the world and whatever may be your background or beliefs, I shall endeavour to serve you with loyalty, respect and love as I have throughout my life. That was a concept of service that encompassed the events of the whole weekend. Sunday's big lunch was about bringing people together to celebrate community and to tackle loneliness, while Monday's big help-out was about getting more people involved and volunteering in the area. Last night it was estimated that 6 million people had taken part in the big help-out and that figure is expected to increase further when the final numbers are known. It's also been reported that almost 8 million people have now said they're more likely to volunteer and help out as a result of that celebration. Just one of the positive legacies from an incredible weekend. As we look to the years ahead, we see a monarchy that has renewed its promise and commitment to the British people. As our country changes with the passing of time, the monarchy provides a tangible and constant link to our past and heritage. Yet, as we saw with the Coordination weekend, the monarchy itself is not fixed in history. It changes and evolves to reflect the modern values of our whole country. Where once a monarch would have been regarded as the defender of the faith, his Majesty pledged to defend all faiths. A promise proudly underscored by the presence of religious leaders from all faiths at his Coordination. His Majesty is committed to promoting inclusivity and diversity of our modern United Kingdom. With our country facing difficult and challenging times, the King has committed to put service at the heart of his reign. We, on this side of the chamber, wish their Majesties a long, happy and healthy reign. I close by repeating the words that we, as a congregation said on Saturday, long live King Charles. God save the King. When the ceremony in Westminster Abbey at the weekend, it was a great privilege to witness history being made. But while the Coordination itself was incredible, in many ways what it meant to so many was even more incredible. I of course mean for those who were part of celebrations taking place across the country, but I mean more than that. Right across the UK, friends, neighbours and communities came together to mark this historic moment. From vibrant street parties to casual get-togethers to those who simply enjoyed a long weekend with loved ones. These are communities bound together not by ceremony or duty, but by common interest and friendship. I also mean the volunteers on the day. I had the great pleasure in speaking to a number of volunteers at the Coordination, particularly to the young scouts. You could see and hear how much it meant to them and their families. And to the charities, something that is close to King Charles' heart. To all the charities that were represented at the Coordination, to them it felt like a recognition of their efforts and an acknowledgement of the vital services they provide. I was struck by the chief executive of Maggies, a centre or centres across the country that provide invaluable service to those who are doing cancer treatment and their families. There were countless other charities that were represented at the Coordination. And globally, millions across the world will have watched with great affection for both our royal family and our country. And these historic moments are a chance to take stock of what our country is and what it should always strive to be. Do not only cherish our country's history, but to look forward to our future. To consider the values we want our country to represent and the role we want to play in the world. And in the new king and queen, we can see those values of public service and duty. And of course we saw all those values lived every single day in the life of Queen Elizabeth. The world changed immeasurably during her extraordinary reign, but her duty, her integrity, her warmth and her service to others never wavered for a moment. She demonstrated strength, leadership and compassion when our country needed it the most. And I know that as we enter this new era, the new king and queen will continue that extraordinary legacy and uphold those timeless values. King Charles had to swear an oath to be the protector of the faith, but he also committed to be a protector of the faith, a recognition of our rich culture, history and diversity. And I'm sure he will strive to reign with that same wisdom, compassion, integrity and justice. With unity, compassion and community for our country, values that I hope all of us would share right across this country to build a better and fairer future. I wish the king and queen a long and happy reign. God save the king. It also gives me great pleasure to offer on behalf of the Scottish Liberal Democrats our warmest congratulations to King Charles III and Queen Camilla on the occasion of their coronation. If I'm honest, I wasn't always sure what I thought about the institution of monarchy, but the acts of commemoration that marked the passing of her late Majesty last September reminded me of the example set by Queen Elizabeth II. The memory of her steadfast devotion to the people of these islands reassured me of the value of having a steadying politically neutral influence at the top of our system of government. I think my position and the position of a great many of our citizens was summarised succinctly in the words of another sat in that ancient abbey on Satay. In a letter to his fans who were incredulous in his decision to attend the coronation, legendary Australian musician Nick Cave wrote, I'm not a monarchist, nor am I a royalist, nor am I an ardent republican for that matter. What I am also not is so spectacularly incurious about the world and the way it works, so ideologically captured and so damn grouchy as to refuse an invitation to what more likely be the most important historical event in the UK of our age, not just the most important but also the strangest, the weirdest. Presiding Officer, for many people the coronation was all of those things. There is something unique and strangely comforting about those rites and rituals that have spanned a thousand years. The Elizabethan age was marked by the constancy of our late Queen's reign. Thanks to her, the institution of monarchy is now steeped in the tradition of public service. Indeed, as we heard from Douglas Ross, the first word spoken by the new king on Saturday where I come not to be served but to serve. In the example of his late mother we can see the promise in those words and to his credit is an example that King Charles has sought to emulate. Indeed, the King and Queen have already exhibited huge commitment to public service in their previous lives. Combined, they are patrons of over 900 charities. King Charles has a long and proud history of supporting youth work, something very dear to me and championing environmentalism. It was he who first publicly warned against the effects of plastic pollution over 50 years ago and he deserves credit for turning down the offer of having terminal 5 that he throw named after him because of the importance of tackling aviation in terms of the climate emergency. Our new queen is also known for her public service and her Majesty has done extremely worthwhile work, particularly advocating for the safety and protection of women and girls. Indeed, in 2013, she established an initiative for providing sexual assault referral centres with wash bags filled with toiletries, a scheme that now operates the country over it. I wish them well and I hope in the years ahead that they will continue to defend the values that make our country great. Firstly, in upholding democracy and free speech, we are a country that proudly finds disagreement on almost every topic. We should never be a country that seeks to stifle either side of that disagreement as we saw in the troubling actions of the Met Police in London on Saturday arresting Republican protesters. Secondly, I hope also that the king would want people to have confidence in the transparency of his reign. At present, as we have discussed before, the Crown Consent Procedure allows monarchs lawyers to flag concern about legislation and request changes. My party has been clear that these details and interventions should be made public, like all institutions. We have a right to know how legislative decisions are made. This is a cornerstone of our democracy. We are a quirky people. Our traditions, our eccentricities and our humour are part of the rich composition that makes up the culture and identity of these islands, so well captured in the words of Nick Cave. Saturday marked a moment in our national story, a turning of the page, and I was very glad to have been a tiny part of that. God save the game. That concludes the debate on the coronation of King Charles III and the Queen.


So we're doing Apex attacks for the battalion. It's an evaluation for our company, live fire company attacks on two separate live fire ranges. How is golf 36 different than others? I would say the biggest difference, at least the first time using it, is just the overall size of the range.  How has McCree increased unit cohesion? I would say it definitely has helped with unit cohesion all the way down to the squad level up to the battalion. Coming out to these events and conducting these complicated attacks as a team definitely gives the Marines a sense of accomplishment and builds cohesion. McCree is extremely important for the battalion because it basically gives us that go ahead evaluation that this battalion is ready to go into combat today. So we're being evaluated based off our company attacks, which non-illuminated live fire attacks at two separate ranges, so it's a big deal. How does it relate to force design 2030? I'd say in a way that it makes us expeditionary and light and quick on our feet the way we attack these problem sets. Always within the Marine Corps is how can we quickly close on an objective so two separate attacks simultaneously is great. How does this range increase Second Division's lethality? It increases our lethality a lot. Each time we get out to a range or come back from a field event, we're increasing our lethality and getting closer and closer where we need to be. With that being said, this unit is absolutely ready to go into combat today. Is there anything I would like to add? Going off what I just said, this battalion is 100% ready to go into combat today if the nation calls on us. So we're out here today to conduct platoon day and night live fire attacks as a part of a bigger piece where we're conducting a simultaneously or near simultaneous company attack. So we're out here today to train, to become more lethal, to become more versatile and mission sets that we may face when we deploy on the Mew. I think this is greatly affected unit cohesion in that we are out here training together through adverse conditions. And not only that, just out conducting a near simultaneous company attack in two different locations really gives the Marines some confidence in their abilities to conduct real world operations. So Range Gulf 36 is a company live fire attack range. It offers a couple dynamic problems for the Marines to face as they attack through it. So one, it's just one of the bigger ranges on this side of the river on Camp Lejeune. And like I said, it just poses a couple different problem sets that other ranges don't and that the way that the defensive posture that the enemy would be in is set up.  So it's important to get out and exercise our skill sets, especially as a company. We don't get too many opportunities to operate at the company level, especially live fire. So it's good to get out and get to do that. It relates to forces on 2030 in that it gives a squad leader a chance to operate on mission type orders and to get out and execute in the bigger scheme of things as a squad. So I believe it increases lethality. Like I said, it's just it's given that squad leader the chance to go out and operate on mission type orders and be a bigger part, play a smaller part in a bigger picture in a company attack. Just glad to be out here with my Marines training. Glad for the opportunity to increase lethality and train my junior Marines.


Why is going on guys welcome back to the channel and I appreciate you being here today I bring this top five destiny to a lucky salute drops of the week and damn this is one crazy episode but if you guys do enjoy the video leaving a like really does help me and my channel out and also if you have any amazing clip to send in send it into the email address linked at the top of that video description but let's get straight into this top five in at number five we have a clip sent in by Siggy is back with the recent nerf two exotics to public events I think it's actually really lucky I heard those explosions from here what was that oh just in at number four we have a clip sent in by header when the gunsmith gives you a new exotic from a legend in at number three we have a clip sent in by cheek on 99 well hello there from a patrol as well absolutely amazing in at number two we have a clip sent in by jaguar 2912 gaming when the blue bastard himself is feeling a little generous in at number one we have a clip sent in by Dave the Perth this is ridiculous three exotics from three chests in a row I'm absolutely done but guys that is the end of top five lucky salute drops of the week if you enjoyed the video leaving a like really does help me out thanks to us for stopping by and hopefully people I will see you on that next video


Okay, thank you for the introduction. So what are session-resumption protocols? So imagine you have a client and a server, and client and server want to communicate with each other, and they have already communicated in the past, meaning that they have, for example, established a 1.3 TLS connection, and they derived in this connection some symmetric secret alongside with some identifier value. And then after some time, the session has been terminated, and client and server actually want to resume the session. So what the client can do is the client is able to send over the identifier to the server, and the server would then be able to, through the identifier, retrieve the secret on his side, and they could resume their connection with the secret they have derived before. And one of the major innovations of TLS 1.3 is that the client is also allowed to send encrypted early data on the first flight of messages, and those are also called zero RTT data. And so the client does not have to wait until the server replies but can already send encrypted payload on the first flight of messages. And there are different ways to implement this in practice, but before we discuss that, I would like to highlight one security property. And this security property is forward security. The objective of forward security is to render large-scale collection of encrypted data useless. So imagine you have a server, and this server serves multiple connections throughout time with several clients. And at a certain point in time, an attacker might compromise the server and obtains its secret key. So what happens is that it might be that all of the future connections might be compromised, but forward security ensures that the previous session still remains secure. So an attacker who obtains the secret key should not be able to decrypt previous encrypted session and data that was sent over the channel. And we want to have a look on forward security and session resumption protocols. And forward security is a standard security goal of modern protocols. So it's heavily advertised by companies such as Facebook and Google, and we really would like to have that in practice. So one approach to implement central resumption protocols and a simple approach is to implement so-called session caches. In this case, the server just has a table containing several entries of identifiers and secrets for several clients. And if a client resumes its connection, it just sends over the identifier, the server retrieves the secret from the table, and can then decrypt and process the early data. And in this case, after the session has been terminated, the server would delete the entry from the table, and after deletion in the session has been terminated, we would actually already achieve forward security and replay protection for the early data. And by replay protection, I mean if an adversary eavesdrops all of the messages and stores the communication and then replays this request to the server after the session has been terminated, then the server wouldn't process this message again as it already has deleted the entry from the table. But unfortunately, this is not what's done in practice. So if you imagine that the server serves maybe thousands of connections per second, it would have to maintain a huge state. So in practice, a different approach is followed. And this approach is called session tickets. And that's what's actually done until S1.3. So again, imagine a client and a server. And this time the server is in possession of a symmetric key. And do note that only the server is in possession of this key. And now the idea is that the server utilizes this key to shift the memory to store the secret, not on server side, but to the clients. And he does that by encrypting them in so-called tickets. And tickets is just a fancy name of saying ciphertext in that case. So what the server is just doing is encrypting the secret with its symmetric key and sends the ticket or ciphertext to the client. The client then stores both secret and the ticket and the server deletes the secret on his side. When later the client wants to resume the session and then redeems the ticket by sending it back to the server. And the client may also send encrypted early data again. And the server is then able to decrypt the ticket again, retrieve the secret, and then decrypt and process the early data. So now we solved the problem we had with session caches. The server now only stores this symmetric key and uses it for all clients. So he doesn't use a lot of memory anymore. But now unfortunately we have not forward security and replay protection for the early data anymore. As if the server gets compromised and the symmetric key gets leaked. An attacker could decrypt all of the tickets that went over to the channel and then could use the secret to encrypt the, to decrypt the early data. Also we could mount replay attacks. So if we replay the ticket and the encrypted early data to the server, the server wouldn't have a way to recognize whether it already processed this data. And I want to remark what's done in practice is that we would perform an additional Diffie-Hellman key exchange after we have resumed the session. So this would re-achieve forward security and replay protection as we would communicate with a fresh, freshly, with a fresh key. But this would not acquire forward security and replay protection for the early data as we already sent payload data before we wait for a fresh answer by the server. And this seems difficult to fix on first sight since we have a non-interactive protocol and we're already sending payload data. And this has been the main question for our paper. So the question is, can we achieve forward security and replay resistance for early data when using session tickets as done in TLS 1.3? Unfortunately, the answer is yes, we can do that. And we will utilize a primitive called puncturable pseudo-random functions for that. So what are puncturable pseudo-random functions? Well, we all know pseudo-random functions where we have a setup algorithm that provides us some evaluation key. And we have an evaluation algorithm that allows us to use this very key to evaluate on certain inputs and gives us some output. And a puncturable pseudo-random function has one additional algorithm called the puncture algorithm. And what the puncture algorithm does is it's revoking evaluation capabilities of the key. So if we puncture our key at position X, it will compute a new key K prime that does not allow evaluation on X anymore. So if you try to evaluate on X, the evaluation will fail. And the great thing about this primitive is we can do this stepwise. So we can puncture our key multiple times and always replace our current key with the key K prime. And we can thus stepwise revoke evaluation capabilities of this key. And security is also pretty similar to the security of pseudo-random functions. So we should not be able to distinguish an actual evaluation from this puncturable PRF from randomness. And additionally, I will give you a punctured key that is punctured on the value you have to distinguish. Okay, so how will we use that to achieve forward security for the protocol? So the main idea is we will use the PPRF to generate ticket encryption keys. So we will evaluate the PPRF, we will receive or we will compute a key through that and we will use this key to encrypt the secret within this ticket. And then after the ticket has been redeemed, we will revoke decryption capabilities by puncturing this PPRF, meaning that we cannot decrypt the ticket twice. So how would this work? How would this look like? Well, again, this now is a simplified version of our protocol. It's a little different, but we have a client and a server. Again, they already have a shared secret and the servers in possession of a PPRF key. And now the server evaluates the PPRF on some identifier value. This could be a counter in practice and obtains a key. And the server then uses this key to encapsulate the secret and the ticket and sense the ticket and the identifier over to the client. The client then again stores ticket, identifier and secret and the server deletes the secret. So when the client's redeeming the ticket, it will relay back all of the data. So the ID, the ticket, and it may send encrypted early data. And what the server then does, it again evaluates the PPRF on the identifier, recomputing the key. It will then use the key to decrypt the ticket, retrieving the secret. It will then use the secret to decrypt the encrypted early data and process the early data. And finally, we will puncture the PPRF key on the identifier value and obtain a new key, PPRF key prime, and we will place our key with the new one. And after we've punctured our key, we would not be able to reevaluate on the identifier value. And so we would achieve forward security and replay protection for our early data. As if the key leaks, an attacker also is not able to recompute this again. So now we need to discuss instantiation of this protocol. And I will discuss two ways of instantiating it. And it's a generic protocol from PPRFs, so let's discuss some PPRFs. And the first PPRF you might use is the PPRF based on the Goldwasser, Goldreich-Mikali PPRF, which in practice would only deploy hash evaluations and is suitable for high-traffic scenarios where you serve thousands of tickets per second, for example. So how does the PPRF work? So imagine you have a binary tree. And initially you have some random seed value indicated by the K and the root node. And our input domain are more or less the leaves at the bottom. So the input would be one, if it's the leftmost leaf, input two would be the neighbor of the leftmost leaf and so on. So if we would like to evaluate on the third leaf, we would consider the third leaf and get a distinct path from the root to that leaf. And this leaf will tell us how exactly to evaluate the result. And we do this by applying two pseudonym generators. And this path will indicate in which order we have to compose the generators to obtain that value. Okay, and how would puncturing work? Well, when puncturing, we would need to delete all of the values that we could use to recompute that value. So we need to delete the root node in this case and need to compute some intermediary node values so that we can evaluate every other leaf in this tree but the one repunched in that case. So the tree, the key of this PPRF might grow over time. And as you can see, the growth actually depends on where you puncture in this tree. So how will we utilize this for our protocol? So the idea is that we will use the ticket keys from left to right. That means if we issue tickets, the first ticket will be issued with the key computed by the left-most leaf for the second ticket, we will use the second leaf and so on. And but if we want to get a feeling how this behaves in practice, we would need to know something about the redeeming behavior of the client because we only puncture after a ticket has been redeemed. And the memory consumption depends heavily on that behavior. And this is difficult to estimate. So to the best of our knowledge, we don't really have an idea how exactly clients behave. But of course, we can discuss that. So the best case would be that clients return strictly from left to right. So the first client redeems its ticket first, the second client redeems its ticket second, and so on. And this would be quite beneficial for our construction as we would exhaust the spinal retrieve strictly from left to right. And so if we were to serve end tickets in total, we would only need to store at most log-end nodes. But this might not be how clients behave. So the worst case is that only every second client actually returns, and this would force us to pre-compute every other leaf at the bottom of this tree. And we would essentially end up with a session cache where we already pre-computed all of the keys we need. But again, this is unlikely. In practice, it doesn't seem like only every second client would return. So what happens in practice? And since we didn't have reliable data on that, we asked Cloudflare for advice, and they advised us that it seems reasonable to assume that clients return roughly in order from left to right. And what they meant by that is that it's more likely that a client who has been issued a ticket some time ago is more likely to return than a client who has just been issued a ticket. And this seems to make sense, right? And this would also benefit our construction a lot as all of the computations in the tree, all of the puncturings would only take place in one subtree. And well, if you closely look at the tree, you might then see that it doesn't get that bad. OK, so this is the first construction, and then we also have a second construction. And this actually is a new PPF we have developed for this paper. And this PPF is inspired by the RSA accumulator by Kaminish and Lian Skaya.  So the key size is independent of the punctures, so the key will not grow. It has a short key in practice, and we have a tight security proof in the random oracle model. Additionally, we have a bounded domain, so the domain size will determine the efficiency and the computations depend on the domain size. And I will give you a brief intuition on how this works. So the idea is, imagine you have an RSA modulus N, and you generate this modulus and you discard the primes. And then we know that it's easy to compute K to the power of some exponent, and K will be our key later on. So K to some exponent mod N is easy to compute, but it's hard to invert this computation without knowledge of the factorization. And we will use this as leverage to realize puncturing values. Additionally, we need to define some prime numbers. So let P1 to PN be the first N odd prime number. So 3, 5, 7, 11. And do note that those prime numbers have nothing in common with the prime numbers of the modulus, so in practice, they will be much smaller. Maybe think of them as the first 250 prime numbers. So how would evaluation work? Evaluation works as follows. So we would have our key K, this is just some random element in ZN, and we would raise K to the power of all of those prime numbers, the product of all the prime numbers, but we would leave out the elf prime number when evaluating on input L. So if, for example, we evaluate on input L equal 100, we would consider the product of some prime numbers, but we would leave out the 100 odd prime number. And of course, we can do that for all numbers from one to N. Okay, and then additionally, we need to hash this expression otherwise there would be an attack, so we need to hide the algebraic structure of that expression. How would puncturing work? Well, when puncturing, we would replace our current K with K to the PL when puncturing at position L. So we will raise K to one prime number of those odd prime numbers. And the idea is, since we do not know the factorization of N anymore, we cannot revert this computation. And as you see, if we would like to evaluate on input L, we would actually need to compute in our key to the power of the prime numbers, which does not contain the prime number we just used to puncture. So we are not able to compute K to the prime numbers anymore, which does not contain PL in the exponent. So that's the idea of puncturing. But as you have noticed, we only have a polynomial bounded domain size and this doesn't feel good. So what you can do about this is you could use multiple instances of this K sharing the same modulus. So you could on the fly generate or extend your domain by just sampling a new K from ZN and using that, and you would not need to regenerate the modulus every time, saving computation time. So how would this perform in practice? We did some calculations, and if you want that your average evaluation is cheaper than one full exponentiation or costs at most one full exponentiation and you would consider a 2048 bit as a modulus, you could carry N equal 232 tickets. And this number comes from the fact that the product of the first 232 odd prime numbers roughly is of size 248 bit. And if you apply this to a session cache, for example, for comparison reasons, you could reduce a one gigabyte session cache to only 51 megabytes of storage. Okay, so this is our second construction. And let's conclude what we achieved. So we developed a new protocol that combines the approach from session tickets and session caches in some way. And it's based on session tickets, but it uses significantly less secure memory than session caches. And we achieve the same forward security and replay protection as with session caches. And especially for the early data, so currently if we're using session caches, we do not have forward security for those. When using session tickets, of course, we do not have forward security for those. And our protocol is immediately usable until S1.3 without changes to the protocol. So other changes are also on server side only, so you wouldn't need to change anything in the client implementations as the client only stores random looking bit strings. And additionally in the paper, we have formally modeled what session resumption protocols are. And we also provided a security analysis of our protocol and defined the adversarial model. So if you want to know more about it, you can of course talk to me or have a look in the full version of the paper, which is available on ePrint. Thank you very much. Thank you, there is time for questions. So how do the two PRF constructions compare in terms of computation time, like which is more efficient? Okay, so the tree constructor is way more efficient because in practice you would only have a huge tree and each computation of one path to a next node is only a hash evaluation. And hash evaluations are very cheap, where in contrast, in the strong R's, A, B, S, X, P, P, I, F, we would need to perform explanations and they're way more costly. So considering that the tree is after all better, so are there other ways of arranging like users in the tree because you said, okay, we will arrange them according to time, but I don't know, depending on the application, you might have like a model of user behavior that is different. So I don't know if there are different policies of setting the users on the tree, but... Yeah, I mean, it really depends what you want. So what we want, of course, is we want to reduce the key size as far as possible, right? And if you have, of course, a good idea how clients behave, you might utilize that. It really depends on the scenario and understanding the behavior of this construction in the real world. So if it's likely that every second always return, every second client only returns, then this might not be suitable, but you maybe could use something else. So underlying this construction is like you're saying, okay, session resumptions, but it will happen only once.  So those are multiple users. So this is the server side and the server has served multiple tickets to different clients. No, but what I mean is the same client, he will come back, I don't know, it looks like you're saying, okay, he came back and then I delete, I puncture the PRF. And but I don't know, the same, the same, I don't know what you mean by session resumption, but this session, the same session can resume another time. I don't know, it will just hang on and then resume once again, but... Maybe let's discuss this offline later then. I'm not sure if I really understood what you asked. So if for some applications, some of you thought about it, you can see that like another simple idea would be to, if maybe forward security, you know, corrupting servers may be less important, hopefully the servers don't get corrupted often, but if you just want replay protection, I mean, another idea just to kind of implement some kind of efficient dictionary, you know, essentially just, you know, which IDs have been kind of used, right? You can have kind of dictionary, you can have it encrypted on the server side. So a priority would be hard to find collisions, even though it could be kind of non-cryptographic. Have you considered this idea? Is it a good compromise maybe in between? I think it was actually once deployed in Google's Quick, where they just start, for example, in the Bloom filter, all of identify values. And, but they said it was too hard to maintain if they serve too many connections and they have to somehow synchronize this. And so they're actually not using this anymore and either are knowingly foregoing forward security as they say like you did, that maybe the server does not get compromised or they say higher application levels have to deal with recognizing such requests, such replay attacks. But yeah, so they thought about it, but they are not deploying it anymore. So I have a question. Doesn't this approach open you to a denial of service attack where clients would actually deliberately try to use every other session and so too? Yeah, so what we're doing in the protocol too, so I mentioned here that this is a simplified protocol. And what we are actually doing is we're not simply encrypting this, but we're using authenticated encryption so that it's not as easy to forge an identifier for some ticket. And so this shouldn't be possible anymore then.