Hi, and welcome to the organizers panel of the legal and policy dev room at FOSDEM. You've stuck with us this long. This is the end of our second afternoon of material and we organizers wanted to come here talk about a few relevant topics of the day and say hello to you and tell you who we are. So shall we introduce ourselves everybody? Some of us have already been on moderating panels, but my name is Karen Sandler. I'm the executive director of the software freedom conservancy. I care about software freedom because I'm a cyborg lawyer and I have a pacemaker defibrillator implanted and I would love to see the service code in my own body. So, Alex. Okay, I'm I'm Alexander Sander. I'm a policy consultant and yeah, therefore, I'm trying to make sure that everybody in the European Union knows about free software and advantages of free software and especially decision makers. And yeah, so that's my job. And I hand over to Bradley. So, I'm Bradley Kuhn from software freedom conservancy and the policy fellow there. I've been helping organize this panel for a while and excited to work with our new team that those of you who have seen our panel in person at FOSDEM in the past. See that we're a little different group here. So Richard. Oh, Max. I just continue. Alright, so my name is Max meal. I work for the free software foundation Europe. I work there in different areas started with policy and meanwhile also more in the legal area where I coordinate a few initiatives like reuse for instance, which we will definitely talk about later. And yeah, I stuck with the FSB for a long time and yeah, I care about free software too, as many of the most or all people here in this panel. And I'm Richard, Richard Fontana. I'm a lawyer at red hat. My, my work involves mostly open source and free software. Related legal matters, and I've been doing that for a long time and I've been involved in some way in helping organize. This step, this step room, excuse me, since pretty much the beginning. So happy to be here again. Yes. And now it's a really good opportunity to say, like, thanks to. Thanks to my fellow corg organizers who have done this all of these years with me and, and thanks to our new organizers for participating with us. This was a really, really challenging and also fun year. As it turned out, thanks to thanks to all of your participation. I want to take a moment to thank Tom marble who had been a co organizer for previous dev rooms who always worked so so hard we keenly missed his absence this year. And I hope he's watching along and know that we really appreciate all of his past work and and have thought about what he would say at every step of the process. I'm sure he's watching right now and we'll be saying something in IRC for those of you following along in the chat. So, I think that leads us perfectly to the first topic to talk about normally on this panel we talk about the what we see our themes that come up in our dev room or, or really important issues of the day. And I think one of the things that is the, the, the most poignant is simply events in the age of COVID and how, and how operating during the pandemic is, is an opportunity for software freedom but also a challenge as proprietary solutions are foisted upon us. Yeah, I've been watching this really carefully this year and, and, and I'm very concerned that the video chat quickly became a center of how people got their work done. And, at least here in the United States and I'm curious to hear from my European colleagues that's happened there. It's so dominated by a single proprietary software company, namely zoom. People in the United States use zoom as a verb to mean video chat. Now, they talk about doing a zoom talking on zoom being on zoom. And it's very frustrating to even tell people that there's an alternative that's available. We're using big blue button to record this panel jitsie is being used by FOSDM to do the, to do the live chat during the conference, and they are excellent free software technologies that we just have had great challenges, at least the beef scene here in the US getting others to pay attention to are you all seeing the same thing in Europe as it been difficult to get people to switch off proprietary video chat platforms. We had those issues as well, especially in the beginning of the pandemic. But I have to say is say that we also see saw a lot of positive examples here, like for instance in the educational sector, big blue button is a known thing. I know a few students right now younger and older, and most of them are aware of using big blue button when I invited them for for associations meeting so at least that's some good news. And we have a lot of activists who spread the word about those alternatives, not only regarding we did chat, but also other collaboration tools that we see. So there's also a pride side of things. Also, maybe to add here what we've seen in the very beginning of the crisis is that many companies use the word or the term free software in order to promote their software, which isn't free software. And they it's more likely a shareware, freeware or whatever. And they had like a subscription for three months or stuff like this. And they really try to get on the market with using the term free software. And this is also what we've seen in the beginning and what we try to challenge with some news articles and press release on that. But yeah, this is also something we should keep in mind for future that, yeah, that the term free software is not connected to these kind of offers. Yeah, and since since the early 2000s, I've encouraged people to just at least been speaking in English to say software freedom instead, because it's less ambiguous. Do you have software freedom is the question to ask people. And it's not just happening, I think with video chat during the pandemic, there's just this whole group of proprietary technologies, many of which replace technologies that were invented in in free software. So if you look at things like Slack and other proprietary technologies, we've had free software chat clients since the beginning of the internet in the early 1990s. And now these companies have found a way to sort of insinuate proprietary technologies that replace standing free software applications in the marketplace. And so it was so so bad that I recently participated in an online conference where every technology for the speakers was a proprietary technology. The speakers guide was in Google Docs and the the bag wasn't on Slack, but it was on Discord was the speaker chat and the video platform for recording talks was proprietary and the online collaboration, the venue platform for the day of was a was under a semi free software license under a non commercial use only style license. So, so, so even free software conferences are having the challenge and it's kind of it's very impressive that FOSDM but while it's been certainly very difficult to organize as a dev room, remotely this year, one of the things that one of the organizers of FOSDM told me last week was that their goal was to prove to the world that you could run a conference as large as FOSDM as an online event during COVID using only free software. And, and they've, as we've seen, as last two days they have succeeded and we've pulled this off so so it's really impressive and I while while I, well I've had my frustrations of trying to organize this event remotely, it has not been fun and I wish Tom Marvel was back many times and he's been laughing at me every time I talked to him appropriately so because he did all the work in the previous years, I'm really glad that that this has happened so that we can show that these events can be done with all free software. Yeah, I was going to say that that I don't actually feel like this year this past year has been really significantly different and I think that's one of the points you're making Bradley, I, I've watched, you know, the proliferation of non free non open source tools, even in sort of, you know, technical or developer communities that are oriented towards towards free software development for almost as long as I've been involved in kind of doing legal work in this area at least maybe not going back further than that so. So maybe things have accelerated somewhat but I see it more as a continuation of a pattern. I think that's true and I think that, like, I think that what we saw was like highlighting an exacerbation of that trend. And, and seeing that happen in the help space and we had a whole panel that mostly talked about this issue. You know, I think that the, the idea of focusing on software freedom has never been more important because so many of these non free sharing solutions are being complicated and people think that they're, and they're helpful in an immediate emergency like the metronic ventilator that has your, you know that that is a lot allowed for use but doesn't grant the rights to go for it we're planning for this pandemic, and our emergency needs but we're not planning for the next pandemic. And I think Fontana you're absolutely correct that this has been an ongoing problem that's been exacerbated, especially in the developer communities when I think about just to compare it to some of the other panels we had in the compliance panel we didn't talk too much about the compliance tools that we're planning. And the main reason as a moderator I didn't push on that issue so much is because I know many of the most of the tools that people use software tools are non free, a phosology was mentioned on the panel, which is the only phos tool for compliance more or less there's a few others, but, but it's certainly the most popular one all the other tools that are very popular are proprietary. And even the collaboration communities that develop those standards and tools, they're using proprietary software a major compliance tools process, you have to agree to proprietary license and agree not to reverse engineer the mailing list just to join the mailing list of that project. So, so we're really seeing that become more and more that that that people doing false aren't using false tools. And I can't help but mention, get hub which is the most popular false development site is a proprietary software site with tons of proprietary JavaScript that people are using develop us every day. So, so I think I think that's something that that we the pandemic has just made more obvious but you're absolutely right fun time it was there for some time. It's sad because we actually have the tools like we have the alternative tools that work like big blue button. And if we were all to put our weight behind them they would improve. And we would be, it would be this this amazing thing but instead, because we're, we're, we're instead as a society doubling down on these proprietary solutions and we free software contributors are the ones who are locking that in. So what would folks think so what are some other themes that you think have come up over the last, the last year that we ought to address. Is there anything else that was major that happened this year that we should, we should be sure to talk about. In terms of health, what I found kind of really interesting was the discussions about the tracing apps. So, so there's also somehow a light at the end of the tunnel and this discussion around these tracing apps and indoor availability and that we can share data across borders, especially in Europe. That's an issue. And so this helped a lot, especially on the decision maker side. So they now have a better understanding of why open source free software is so important. And yeah, why, especially if it comes to sharing across borders and across languages, it's so important that we have this tracing app in Spain in Germany and in, I don't know, in Austria in a different language, but they are able to talk to each other. And this is only possible because it is free software and we had a huge debate here in Europe around these tracing apps and especially around that it is free software. And so this might help at the end. And also in the health panel, we've seen that there had been loads of hackathons, for example, that the results have been published as free software because it is a good idea to do so. And I think this panel was also very interesting in this regard. If you speak about health apps and the corona tracing apps, it's still quite interesting that the platform for all of this. Well, we have two gatekeepers here with Google and Apple, and it took the free software community quite a few of months to make this possible. Like to have these exposure notifications API all implemented with free software and so people can just install it from, for instance, after or for Android phones. So, we're, again, in the situation where the software itself is free, but the platform is not so it's quite interesting also for there for publicly funded software to see basically can I really use it and with as much software freedom as possible. And it turns out it's still quite interesting a long way to go. Yeah, certainly when you compare it to the United States, all the new stories were about Google and Apple, we're going to solve the contact tracing problem and all of the apps are proprietary that people are using here so I'm so glad to hear that in Europe. As we heard about in the, when I was listening to the, the DMA talk, I mean, the DMA talk was sort of saying, well, we need to make this law so much better in Europe and I was looking at his slides of stuff that's already in your laws in Europe. And I'm like, I wish we had that much like what you already have in Europe I wish we had here in the US because there are no laws that are that are very friendly to interoperability and free software the way that you already have in Europe so. So kudos to you all who've done policy work in Europe to make that happen over the last 20 years because we unfortunately do not have a system where it's easy for us to get that stuff into our legislation here in the United States. So yeah, and a shout out to Deb and Hong Fux talk for for for bringing the conversation global. We are, we are a global community as free software contributors. And it's, it's important to learn from all of the work being done in different places, especially where it's successful and I agree it's the US is not, is not a great example of that which maybe is a good transition to talk about something that has happened in the last year that we didn't cover in the program. Bradley I don't know if it makes sense to talk about just to fill people in on the DMCA stuff when we talk about how bad things are in the, in the United States, or Richard I don't know if you have any. The start of the front and I have talked about this a lot I mean the startup culture in the US has had some influence on false and not usually particularly good front and do you want to do you want to talk a little bit about what's happened in the last year with with some of the startups have done with regard to licensing. That's been really much in the news the last the last year. Yeah, so I remember we, we actually talked about this in our organizers panel, last year, I think it was last year and not, not the year before. And, and it was a major topic then. So, so we were seeing this trend of, you know, I want to say startups, but it's not, you know, I'm not sure it's, it's limited to what I would call startups but smaller tech companies that have grown up around a sort of vendor controlled free software slash open source project. You know, typically using a certain type of governance model that emphasizes, you know, using a kind of asymmetrical contributor agreement a CLA or whatever. And not really having a very, you know, significant contributor community in part because these these companies tend to be hostile to to outside contributors for various reasons. And then these companies sort of a few years ago started experimenting with licensing models that resembled, you know, sort of free and open source software licenses in some respects. But, but deviated from them in significant ways. And, you know, MongoDB and the server side public license was the first notable example of this and at least in the modern era and that was about three or four years ago now. But we saw a number of other companies moving in this direction. And we talked about that a little bit last year. So very recently, the latest company to do something like this was elastic earlier this month announced that it was going to use the server side public license. So the license that MongoDB had introduced for, for some of its projects.  These companies have, you know, in part been sort of blurring the meaning of, you know, it's really open source, not free software. So they've been, they've been blurring the meaning of open source and sort of trying to, to push on the boundaries of the open source definition. And, and, you know, this, the main feature of these various licenses is sort of, you know, I would say sort of use restrictions. So kind of prohibitions on, on use cases by competitors, essentially, you know, to a large extent these companies are concerned about competition from, you know, cloud providers and that's kind of motivated some of these, these license changes. But, you know, kind of more, more broadly, I think this just sort of is part of a longer theme of, of, you know, tension that's existed, you know, between sort of like free software or open source as a means of kind of building a basis for business success versus the kind of ethical goals that lie behind, you know, free software and, and I would say open source as well. And, and we know year after year we continue to see interesting examples of this and this is sort of the latest, I guess. Interesting. And we had a talk in our, in our dev room this year about this kind of proprietary licensing business model. I think when we were doing the acceptance for the talk for the talks I was sort of most skeptical about that because I didn't want to provide a mouthpiece to the proprietary licensing regime that MongoDB and Elastic and other such companies are putting forward. The really nice thing that I kept an open mind about and I actually think it ended up, I would give that talk the best talk of the year award on our track, because I think it really laid out in a very clear way, how the, the, the cute cutie situation impacted the KDE project and how the KDE project by being a strong existing free software project probably and still to this day I think probably the largest user of cute of anybody in, in any free software space at all was able to leverage their, their community power to assure that cute remain free software and to bind the company and its successors to continue to improve the free software. It's quite a magic trick from my point of view that they were able for so long across so many owners of cute to assure that that that the public version of free software version of cute did not become a, you know, just a, you know, un-maintained kind of afterthought release. And that's something that I think was unique to KDE. I disagree a little bit with Cornelius's conclusion that we could do this for any of these projects because I think it was almost a artifact of its time that open source was not something that someone went to market around. I don't think any cute could go to other customers in the late 1990s and convince them to buy, to buy based on it being open source whereas MongoDB and Elastic are seeing that. The other thing that's really disturbing about the Elastic move different than the MongoDB move is they move from a free software license to this SS public license, which is is not a FOS license. And it's played into this view of copy left versus anti copy left because MongoDB tried so hard to convince people the SS public license was the future of copy left as they put it when they began marketing it. And here we have Elastic switching from the non copy left Apache license to a, to SS public license. And so I found it very difficult as an activist and a policy person to explain the nuance of well actually the SS public license isn't a copy left license. And if it were, if there were a copy left license they switched to, it might have helped them fight Amazon in the way that they wanted to. But what they did instead is they switched to this non free license to fight Amazon. So, and I have I'm curious how that's playing out in from our European colleagues in Europe and if folks are folks are able to see that nuance in a way they haven't been able to hear in the US. I'm not so sure whether there's a big difference between the European view and the US review definitely troubles also us as well at the FSFE that this happens. Definitely. So, I think the difference here between the the KD cute model that Cornelius presented and elastic as well cute and and Katie they wanted to cooperate and they were mature enough in the sense of like, let's let's cooperate with each other. So they had this agreement and it has been fulfilled also by the successors basically. So we see here a successful fruitful cooperation, while as Richard already said, CLA is as a asymmetric way of contribution and so well this has been basically laid out that this could happen and I think I think a big topic will be how to how like the free software contributors want to interact with companies, or with organizations that might take their contributions away and make them basically proprietary. So this is a discussion to lead and I think it's not bound to the US or to Europe in specific. But yeah, I found this maturity discussion quite interesting, a shared theme among like Cornelius talk, but also in the compliance panel that you moderated Bradley, which I found definitely interesting and also I will quote David from Huawei. When he says that, well, you can really see whether a company is mature enough, if their false compliance is actually mature process on a good process that they have. And I quite like this that companies thing from the beginning on in free software terms and this as a thought less after product basically. And to be honest, I missed a little bit the mention of reuse here, because I think this is a perfect example how communities and projects can fix clarify their their licensing and their copyright from the start on. And this is the thing that can be created or worked with by organizations and individual developers, no matter which size they have or no matter the project size. And I would love to see this more that people care from the very start on, like the York to project that they are actually with every release, combined with the software but also that they have properly declared the licensing and copyright of their project because I think we waste too much energy into fixing problems after they have been created with tools like for Solitude with our which are great and which we need, but we should put more effort into fixing those issues before they have been created. Yeah, and there and I guess we could tell our audience that there was an excellent talk submitted on reuse, and our F stuff Europe colleagues were surprised to learn that we had a, we had long ago created this rule that unless it's a substitution talk because of of somebody not showing up. We've always made it that anybody any organization that's kind of represented on the organizers panel can only have one talk from the organization in any given year and fast and so, so we did have to turn away so some excellent talks from your colleagues at F stuff Europe under that rule so so we're so we're sorry that you were unpleasantly surprised by. Of course, I wasn't really surprised that that's fine for me and I love that my colleague because also they had had his chance to speak in the in the strike and if people are interested I gave a similar talk in the open chain deaf room so just a pointer. So, so, so in the interest of a talk we weren't able to give Karen so so so conservancy had some work this year that I guess we could cover here that we would have would have submitted to talk about if not it's not for that rule. Regarding our DMCA work do you want to talk a little bit about that that happened this year here in the US. Sure, sure, I was looking to transition to it a little bit before when we were talking about how much worse the laws are in the United States compared to elsewhere in the world. So it seemed like a very easy time to transition to the digital millennium copyright act in the United States which provides prohibitions on circumventing technological protection measures. In order to to even do lawful uses of of the technology and so there's a process every three years where folks are invited to propose exemptions to that rule and conservancy and others have been involved on behalf of free software. Throughout we, we, you know, many of your organizations, protest the existence of the law to begin with, and then engaging in the three year cycle allows us to propose exemptions and so conservancy in the past applied for and and one an exemption for smart TVs. And, and I personally participated in one for medical devices. And, and this year, conservancy applied for a number of of new exemptions ones to allow us to to get around to basically allow us to circumvent so that we can see what software is running in a device so we can know if there's if there's a GPL violation. And so basically circumvention being used in order to hide copyright infringement. So, it's sort of a novel argument for the Library of Congress in the United States and I'm looking forward to see how that plays out. We've also applied for one for routers which connects back to our router freedom talk that we had earlier in the dev room. And we had Bradley help me out. What was our, we are the only organization that was was unwisely enough to file three exemption requests. And we followed one for, for, you know, a small expansion of the privacy restrictions that are in there's a privacy allowance already in the law here in the US but one of our filings. Looks for, you know, kind of a small, a small expansion of that privacy exemption that already exists, which is, which, which that wouldn't sort of if it's not granted it's not as big of a deal because the privacy exemption in the law is still pretty was already pretty broad which is which is fortunate. But what we're trying to sit, you know, just try to move that edge edge that a little bit forward in our in our exemption request. And with the highlighting that that if we have controlled over our software, we're going to use it to protect our privacy. And then I personally was also involved in an expansion of the medical devices one too. And so I'm excited about that process. You know, it's not as it's, it's granular, but by moving the needle each time we start to see real freedom. And I think that because I think that what happens in the United States on these issues does have something of a reverberating effect globally. So it's good for people to stay up to date. Yeah, and as part of that process I this year I did some I spent two days kind of after we filed those I went digging, trying to figure out why the DMCA is such a horrible law here in the US. And it's very, it's very interesting history that it is it is worldwide affecting because it's because it's based on a WTO act, the World Copyright Act, I believe it's called WCT. And it turns out the US kind of unsurprisingly implemented use the existence of this to bring in lots of things that media companies which of course many of which are based here in the US wanted as far as restrictions go. So our law here in the US goes much further than say the UCD does in Europe, but it's really a worldwide problem and the amazing thing is is that this, this all started back in the early 90s. And so and then the DMCA is passed in the late 90s. So this is this is some 22 years of bad policy that we've had. And, and many people who are probably watching our deaf room like weren't even we're children when all this policy went into place and so we've looked to educate more about why these policies exist and how bad they are things like the MCA because most people have grown up with these standards and the chilling effects that they create have become a regular part of life, not just for free software but for also. And this regarded just a note that was also quite interesting that the DMCA case about around YouTube DL had also an effect on European hostels, for instance, so we had a few cases here at least which I know personally in Germany, where their mirrors of the software also had to be taken down and this is quite interesting that you might have bad regulation in the US but it has definitely an effect on on Europe as well as well as the other way around. Yeah, I just noticed that we had still one talk which we didn't speak about yet, which is the give open source of text break talk and perhaps Alex you want to talk about this a little bit. Since you you saw this I know. Yes, yes, I attended this. It was also quite interesting. I mean, it's also a general question. How can we finance free software projects and it's not about a text break. Maybe it's a it's a general and a fundamental question how we can get money into this one solution can be due to these text things they have in in France like you spent $10,000 and you get 66%. And I think it was like this back from the state if you if it's like for the for the whole community and stuff like this. So we have something similar in Germany. So, but I think it's a it's a general thing. So in Europe, for example, we have to rise in 2020 a big research program. This has billions of dollars and I think a lot of more or more money could go into free software projects as well. We have this open tech funds and stuff like this and discussions around funding in general. And this is something we should also think about and share some ideas and best practices now also think it's on the government side to fund free software projects. They use free software and they should also fund it and it's also good for our whole society and therefore there should be funds available in order to support these funds. As we've seen now in the Corona crisis, it would be good to have some solutions in place before. And yeah, so here, yeah, state money could could be a game changer in the future and we should make sure that there are funds available in order to make sure that there are good free software solutions in place for father crisis and but also for the normal situation as well. Yeah, there have been really interesting proposals in the United States over the years to provide tax breaks that would have real impact on the software freedom contributors in the United States things like things that were proposals that were designed to to benefit artists that would would provide benefit for free software developers so in the United States if you make a donation of your code to a charity. You can deduct the cost the only the cost so if you're an artist for example you can deduct the cost of the painting like the canvas and the paints but you can't deduct your time and so even if you're a world famous painter and you could you know anyone who could sell your painting for millions of dollars, you can only take a tax deduction of your materials. And so there have been proposals in the United States that that have been to change that but none of those bills have passed. And so it's just interesting to to hear about, you know, possibilities elsewhere and to possibly revive some of those conversations in the United States to. Hopefully, so this is obviously we said the pre recorded part of our session, given that we're at the end of the FOSM schedule by now, probably all the online stuff should hopefully be working without any glitches so we're going to hopefully join you all in the online chat. And after this and be able to take questions from those of you that have watched our entire dev room here for the virtual legal and policy panel and from my point of view I'd be glad to be back in Brussels next year. So hopefully all the vaccines work and and COVID coronavirus is the same as the flu by the time we by the time FOSM rolls around again, we can only hope. Yeah, I want to once again thank the FOSM organizers, it's so much work to put on a conference like this and they just did so much more work to make sure that nobody had to use proprietary software and that's so awesome and I'm sorry we're not in person where we can't stand up and applaud them and also thank them in the hallway. And yeah, so, you know, I just wanted to mention that and then also we're also happy in the past we've had this time to hear about feedback from you all in terms of what you'd like to see in the future and play, you know, ways that we can improve the legal and policy Dev room and so we'd like to address questions first and then feedback but if for some reason we don't have the live Q&A, feel free to contact us and give us that feedback. Bradley, do you want to tell them all what they should do in the room? I, we don't know all the details at the time of recording, but there's probably stuff on the FOSM website and show you how to talk to us next as we wrap up here. I was joking. I was joking. I was you normally say clean the room. Oh, right. Yeah. Yeah, that's true. People don't have to pick up there. If there's any trash you left behind, it's in your own house, your own home right now. So, yeah, usually we have to clean up the venue. Clean up your house now. Yeah, everybody go clean your house and make sure that it's ready immediately the next group when they come in on Monday. All right. Well, thanks everybody. Thanks for watching. Thanks to my co organizers for another FOSM. Thank you. We'll do Q&A now. You should get started. Wow. Well, we have made it to the end of FOSM 2021. This is the last session of our legal and policy dev room. I want to thank the audience for sticking with us and being here for this whole day. We've still got some time though. So we organizers are here to answer all the questions that you might have. And, and yeah, so I'm going to just start going through the questions in the channel again by how they were upvoted. So we'll start with the first one, which is from Krishna, which is what did you miss most about the physical FOSM and what was the positive aspect of the online event for you personally. So, so I missed waffles and I made the waffle recipe as recommended. I was told by my co panelists that I should not bring the batter out to show it on camera. I did not have time to make the waffle before but as soon as this is over. I'm going to make the FOSM waffles, which they won't be as good. Yeah, I don't miss that I that my feet don't hurt. Great. Awesome. I missed the hallway experience. Definitely. So the chatter. But I have to say, I have to admit, I'm really impressed by how this has been pulled off by by FOSM, how the experience came across the talks and discussions afterwards. So really good work. Yeah, I think also all these social parts and the social events beside the FOSM itself. This is what I'm missing. I'm missing Brussels and yeah, but Max just said, great. Thank you to the organizers of this virtual FOSM here. It went very, very well. It was quite a lot of fun. And yeah, thanks a lot. It made so much fun. And I want to put a really fine point on the fact that we were talking a lot in our prerecord about the questions of conferences requiring proprietary software like zoom. This conference was done with 100% free software. I hope you all had a good experience but from our point of view it was completely seamless.  But this is the best online conference I've attended and I think it's completely unreasonable for anybody to argue they have to use proprietary software to run online events. Now, there was one piece of proprietary software and all this one capture that you had to get through to make the cat. If you made the account on chat dot FOSM dot org, but, you know, for that little, you know, 100 lines of code to be the only proprietary software involved in all of this, please support FOSM. They I helped them launch the the t shirt and I was the first person to buy a sweatshirt because I happened to be on IRC at like two in the morning Europe time when they launched it. So I bought a sweatshirt I crashed the database but I'm getting my sweatshirt anyway, but I encourage you all to go buy the t shirts and sweatshirts and support FOSM there are mostly volunteers doing this to make this happen and it's been amazing. I echo that they did an incredible job. I miss seeing them all in person I miss seeing all of you in person. It's not the same, although I am surprised that it was so engaging and so all consuming that it was just like a real FOSM or I didn't have a chance to eat or drink anything. But but and I also miss the chocolate. In addition to you. So Richard, what about you. For me Brussels is a totally magical place this time of year despite the weather which is slightly better typically than than the weather where I'm at now in the Northeast US, but it's it just has a special place in my heart I've been going to FOSM for so many years now. But the, you know the online conference is really impressive I have to say I'm really happy to see how well that's worked out. The first question that was voted is a follow up to this one I think which is to panelists from the US. How does it feel that at the end of the sessions and follow up discussions you still have several hours before it is getting dark. The question is the other way around I got up at 430 both days. The first day, none of my alarms work and Karen had to call me. The alarms didn't work. But yeah it's really it's really the waking up that's the issue not the not the rest of the day it doesn't doesn't help that much. It's very weird to have a whole like to have FOSM and then have like a day with my family. That is super strange and really lovely.  So it's like very, very brightly light outside and it reminds me of the year where it we had this massive snowstorm at FOSM. Richard, what about you. Oh, so, so much. Yeah, so I mean part of the experience is actually the jet lag and I, you know, I'm not experiencing any of that now. I got a full night's sleep and that's just like it's it's not quite the same thing, but but I can remember what it was like and kind of sort of cherish that. If you move to the West Coast, I basically have the jet lag, right. Well, it was great that the FOSM organizers could could allow it would allow us to do two afternoon sessions, rather than a full day session it really made it a lot a lot more manageable for those of us in other time zones. I didn't want to get up at 130. All right, so what's going to be the next hot topic we're going to discuss next year. Let's start with the Europeans since they didn't get a chance to answer the previous question. It's hard. I mean, we kicked the session off with the European source with the open source strategy by the European Commission and as they just started this. I would love to follow up on this and to see what they've done in the then last year. But also we have seen on the DMA and the router freedom and there are so many issues we are working on and yeah so it's it's hard to predict what's the most important one. There's so many and we've seen a lot and most of them will be there, I guess, also next year. Yeah, I think these are the policy topics on the legal side also really hard to predict. I guess really we share the same issues there. Perhaps another uprise another project that goes to SSPL. Perhaps also that developers think about CLA's this asymmetric relationship with the companies that are going into. Perhaps you will see some discussion there. I hope so. But otherwise, yeah, I think in the chat that was mentioned the Google versus Oracle could be a topic. Maybe depends on the outcome. Yeah, and on the general side, the learnings from the corona crisis and so we also discussed it here in the pre-recorded talk a bit and I'm pretty sure that will keep us busy for this year as well. Bradley, did you want to add anything since I cut you. Yeah, I think I think that what decides our content is a lot of times what submissions we get from all of you and we encourage people to submit talks. And then the CFP opens, you know, watch the FOSTA mailing list, which is where it's posted first. We'll try to promote it as many places as we can, but we can only do as well as the talk submissions that we get.  I love that many of the speakers had to apologize when they did something basic like during the AGPL talk. They had to say, we're going to explain it minified JavaScript is we know that's too basic but we do want to make sure we cover it and so we want to see more advanced talks to meet them. Yeah, and let us know if you have a suggestions for topics that should be covered, even if you don't want to do the presentation. Sometimes if we feel like there's a really important topic that's not being covered, we'll put together a panel to address it. So, you know, just let us give us give us feedback it's it's very welcome. So, to get to the next question. How to make companies stop using the term free software for non free software programs. So, as I just said, we tried to challenge this with blog posts and press releases and also collected in a wiki alternatives. And I think this is what we should also continue like creating awareness, trying to prevent people by or get these products and run into a window lock in and creating awareness on social networks like commenting. If they, if they treat about it for example then just post another tweet and say this is not free software. And so yeah prevent people from from running into this window lock in and create awareness I think. Yeah, I find that inundating people with questions is good like, you know, the constant this isn't free software can sometimes where depending on who, you know who the recipient is but it's always a good idea. And sometimes just saying, you know, like asking about whether the software provides the freedoms that we expect free software to provide Richard go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I think, in a way that the question is ambiguous because it could be referring like specifically to the phrase free software, or kind of in a broader sense that kind of free software. In the sense of free software and open source because some people view more people use the term open source in the in the world to mean approximately the same thing and a lot of the abuse we see of, of the that set of two terms occurs on the open source because there's, there's actually so I think there's so little awareness of the free software terminology and I think that the term free software in the in the English sense of gratis software is, is maybe not as common today maybe it's just my own my own work perception, but I think this is basically a linguistic problem and and the the the only way you're going to solve it is, is through kind of a concerted effort to make people aware of what software freedom applicants see as as the meaning of free software. Yeah, I mean the term software freedom was coined a long, long ago, I've been encouraging people to switch to it as the generic term for what we do since the early 2000s. Many others have done the same. I just say, you know, say software freedom and the other phrase I've been using a lot lately is user rights rights of the users and if you focus on those phrases, I think the ambiguities of the linguistic problem melt away. The next question from JWF is what role does individual consumer awareness about privacy and open source since the pandemic began. Is there opportunity and outreach and advocacy that could be better leveraged in light of the increasing dependence and reliance on digital solutions since coven 19. It's a tough question. Yeah, I was going to say like I think that, you know, to some extent, there's been like where we've been on this path for, for people to understand these issues more and more and more every year. Like I've, you know, I remember 510 years ago at my family functions. They all thought that I was, you know, I saw their eyes glaze over whenever I talked about how vulnerable our technology was and they were very nice to me because they're a really nice family. But, but they had no idea what I was talking about whereas that's changed over the last five to 10 years. And, and people seem to really understand that we are vulnerable based on the technology that we choose. And it's small steps that we're, we're getting there and I think that the, the COVID crisis has cut both ways, like I think on some ways, people are really open to new solutions a lot of people, for example, we're using zoom who didn't use zoom before so it was like an introduction of proprietary and unfortunately to them, but if we, for the folks I got to first, who hadn't been using video chat, they did start using jitzy or big blue button more and so there have been a lot of opportunities. It's, you know, it's, it's, it's hit or miss we have to really stay focused on on making it about the next pandemic or the next crisis, rather than about now, because we have to acknowledge that people are doing the best they can, and that everyone is like in a really stressful situation. Yeah, I also thought a little bit about it. I also see this the split between groups of people, like some who are really aware of these these issues and receptive. And others are not. I'm not so sure. I saw a lot of discussions recently about those logos, like we, I think in Europe or only in Germany, I'm not sure. The blue angel logo so where they mark sustainable products and a colleague of mine is working to get free software for sustainable software basically as a requirement. Not sure whether this helps like these simple symbols, how people can see that something is good, even if they do not fully understand why it's good they trust in the logo or in the. And the picture basically and not sure whether that's, that's a solution. Yeah, I think, I think that one of the things that I recommend. So, so my, my, my spouse, who didn't regularly use zoom of course is using it every day now for her work for a small nonprofit. I really encourage people go to their community organizations and volunteer to set them up with things like big blue button and jits and other technologies. This is a place where like direct local volunteer work can actually help you can't see them in person because it's socially distanced, but you can call them on the phone and talk to them about it. And possibly help them get set up with alternative technologies to the proprietary ones they need during the pandemic. Okay, so the next question is where is copy left conf this year.  I mean, I think we may as well. Okay, so, so one of the things we were waiting to see how Fossum went, because if Fossum can organize an online event like this, we figured we, we could probably draft off of their technology. We are going to focus on trying to do it not all at one time. I am not a big fan of asking people to get up at weird times to go to conferences so we're going to try to do it as a seminar series on copy left over over the, you know, the later part of this year. So that's what copy left 2021 will be like, and we'll announce details on SF conservancy.org when we have them, which we do not right now. It's really fun to like be there all day talking about issues that we care about like copy left when we're in person, but virtual conferences are just exhausting. So we're going to probably the sessions will probably be like an hour at a time over a few weeks. And now a question that may take all the rest of our Q&A time which is, how is the SSPL not copy left. Well, I mean, so the quote I've been using it's a quote it's a common quote in various places I don't know who sourced it, but I keep saying every every tool can be used as a weapon if you hold it wrong. But whether or not the SS public license is a copy left is sort of not that interesting a point maybe it is maybe it isn't. But even if it is, it's an abusive manipulation of what copy left was supposed to do. If you design a license that specifically makes it impossible to comply with the license because you have to ask the don't forget SS public license requires that every single piece of software involved in the stack on your device, whether it's a derivative work or not has to be under the SS public license. And no one can actually do that in the real world. We I have yet to see someone who is licensing the SS public license, licensing outbound on it, who won't take it as my colleague on the panel here Richard Fontana said years ago inbound equals outbound is the right way to design contribution mechanisms, and that's not what the SS public license being used for. So I just think it's, it's not even worth spending as much time as we've already spent I mean, it's, it's in one sense, it's, it's an interesting issue of language, you know definition, but but but then, you know, once you decide where you stand on it is, if a copy left license is defined as a free software license, or, you know, whatever a Libre license or open source license that has the features of copy left. Then if you accept the view which I think is a consensus view now that SSPL is not a free software and open source license and that answers the question that it, it can't be a copy left license. But beyond that, I don't, I'm not sure it's really a very interesting question that it's really the, the, the, the policy issues about why the license isn't a free software license is, is the important question to think about. Okay, so we are now at the end of our Q&A session, we're going to go into the, the, what's the hallway track, but the live room where you can all join us and just see if you'd like or interact with us via text that the room link will be provided in the channel. But I want to take this opportunity to thank everybody and to say clean your room. No, I mean, to say thank you for for joining and also leave it to my panelists to say anything else they might want to say. Thank you. Thanks to foster organizers. Thanks for attending. It was great. And hope to see you next year in person. I can only second Alex that has been great. Thanks to my co-panelists here and to this co-organizers has been a really good experience, but yeah, we notice time zones matter. I hope we can do this in Brussels live.


Hi, I'm Peter Burris and welcome to another CUBE conversation from our wonderful studios in beautiful Palo Alto, California. Today we're going to be talking about new architectures, new disciplines required to really make possible the opportunities associated with digital business. And to do that, we've got Neil Vacherajani who is the technical director of Pure Storage. Neil, welcome to theCUBE. Thank you for having me, Peter. So Neil, we have spent a fair amount of time within Wikibon and within the CUBE community talking a lot about what is digital business. So, give me a second, run something by a, tell me if you agree. So we think that there is a difference between business and digital business and specifically we think that difference is a digital business uses data assets differently than a business does. Walmart beats Sears because it used data differently. AWS is putting the pressure on Walmart because it uses data differently or Amazon's putting the pressure on Walmart because it uses data differently. So that is at the centerpiece of a lot of these digital transformations. How are you using data to re-institutionalize your work, realign your resources, re-establish a new engagement model with your marketplace? Would you agree with that? Yeah, I'd absolutely agree with that. And I think a lot of it has to do with the volume of data, where the data is coming from. If you look at traditional business, it really was about just putting into computers what we used to do on paper. And digital business today I think is about generating huge volumes of data by really looking at every interaction we have no matter how small or how big. So putting telemetry on as many things. So IoT for machines, mobile for human beings. But it used to be, as you said, it was a process, known process, unknown technology world for a long time. And now these are data different processes. We're actually using data to describe what that next best action should be, what the recommendation should be. So as we think about this, business has been around for a long time. There's this notion of evidence-based management, which is the idea that we use data differently from the boardroom all the way down to the drivers. How does a business start to bring forward the discipline required to really make possible this data-driven world? Well, I think the first thing is to really recognize why this new paradigm shift changes things. And I think in the old world, if you looked at a piece of data, you actually could articulate all the way from the boardroom down to the stockroom, every use of the data. And that meant that you could build a lot of siloed applications, and that wasn't a big deal. You got your money's worth out of the data. So for example, recording transactions in store number 17. That's right. But in the new world, you actually don't know what the value of the data is ahead of time. In some sense, you're trying to capture a lot of data and then use technology to correlate it with things, mix and match, mash it up, and then drive business decisions that you didn't even know you were making a decision a few weeks ago. And that means that you can't really lock up your data. You can't constrain it because that's going to limit your possibilities and it's going to limit your ROI on that data. Yeah, we like to say that data as an asset is different from all other assets because it is inherently shareable, reusable. It doesn't follow the laws of scarcity. And so in many respects, what the IT organization has had to do is find new ways to privatize that data through things like security. But as you're saying, they don't want to introduce technologies that artificially constrain derivative and future uses of that data. And I think that that's where really the big architectural shift is happening in the data center. Because if you look traditionally, we have siloed the data and it wasn't like this intentional thing that we want to put it into a silo, but that's how we packaged our applications and that's how we deployed our applications. And now we need a new discipline inside the data center that makes the data available, lets people put policies on it, like security policies, but then also makes it available for the innovators all throughout the company to get access to that data. And we're trying to crystallize this whole philosophy into something we refer to as the data-centric architecture where data's at the center, people have access to the data and then there's just applications all around it that are all hitting this common pool of data and doing different things, driving new business processes. Now, you're talking not about a physical pool of data, but rather a logical pool of data. Data's still going to be very distributed, right? Well, you know, data gets generated in a distributed way. Data's very large. I think you would be a bit naive to be able to point to one rack and one data center and say all your data's going to be right here in this one rack. Or in one cloud. Or in one cloud, for that matter. But just from a philosophical perspective, you do want to pull your data out of anything that is, like you said a minute ago, that's constraining it. So I think one really good example of this is when we went, quote unquote, web scale, we saw a lot of applications move into direct-detach storage to dive deep into a technology. And that was great if you wanted to only come in the front door and access the data through the application that was managing that DAZ. But if you wanted to do anything else, you were kind of stuck. So as to summarize this point, we're moving from a world in which data is a place to data is a service. You got that right? That's absolutely right. I mean, the way I like to think about it is that data and storage need to really be different things. And storage's job is to give you access to the data. Storage in its own right, you know, it doesn't solve a business problem. The data that solves a business problem storages the vehicle that gets you there. And so I think it's pretty exciting that there's new technologies that are coming out or that, you know, honestly are here that are enabling that, things like Flash and NVMe and its future. Well, let's talk about that because what the observation that I've made to clients for quite some time is that if you go back, disk was a great technology for persisting data. So again, store number 17, transaction had at a certain time, it's already occurred, we have to record it. So we record it, we persisted on disk. Now what we're trying to do is we're utilizing technologies that are inherently structured to deliver data so that we can have the data be very distributed but still look at it from a logical standpoint and have that data be delivered to a lot of applications, whether that is a local and as long as we don't undermine basic physics, perhaps further away. But even more importantly, deliver it to different roles, different, same data being delivered to developers, same data being delivered to a new application. What are some of those core technologies that are going to be necessary to do this? You mentioned NVMe, let's start there. Yeah, if I just back up a little bit, right? That in some sense, even that recording the data workflow that you talked about, we made disk work but it was actually a pretty challenging media and so we put in a lot of optimizations and things in place because we said we know the usage pattern and if we know the usage pattern, we know how to organize our data. And so it was a step one, like the transformation that I think is in pretty full swing these days was moving from disk to flash. And that was a huge transformation because it meant that random access to the data was just as performant as this carefully crafted sequential access. That meant you could start accepting unknown workloads into your application but you were still stuck behind this very serial, very antiquated, scuzzy protocol and NVMe is now bringing a lot more parallelism to play and that's gonna help us drive things like just simple, plain old data center stuff like density and performance density and power and that kind of thing. So that's sort of step one in terms of the technology that you can package all of this stuff and in a pretty dense package and put petabytes of storage with enough IO to actually access that data. That's the key that you can have petabytes but you only have one eye out for each gig where you're not going to get a lot out of that data. So just to stop right there and that leads to a world in which as long as you're disciplined and architectured you do not have to know what workloads are going to access that data in your term. Well, you know, that's only step one, right? Because the other challenge is that very few people access storage directly, right? We hide this behind databases and we hide this behind a whole bunch of other technologies. Now, those technologies might have their own limitations in place but we have a lot of really rich things we can do at the storage level to present the same data out multiple front ends and so the simplest idea is we don't have one copy of a database we often will have the transactional database that's using recording those transactions but then we'll have an analytics copy of the database and then we need to keep the two of those things in sync. And this is where the discipline and the architecture really comes into place and we kind of have a lot of that figured out for things like relational databases and best practices there but in the meantime, the world also moved over to the new world of no SQL databases, Qs, Kafka, things of that nature and those brought direct attached storage as the best practice and so I think where the discipline comes in and where some of the new technologies that we're talking about right now are how do you bring those old disciplines that we figured out on, let's say, the relational world how do you bring that to bear on the new technologies that are meeting the scale requirements that we have today? Well, one of the more important workloads that are gonna require scale is, for example, AI. So how are we going to organize some of these technologies, add them to these new disciplines to be able to make some of these AI workloads run really, really fast? You know, I think a lot of this really comes down to pulling the storage out and putting it into its own tier and so Pure Storage has an offering called ARI which is packaging NVIDIA DGX boxes with flash blades and we say, hey, you don't need a whole bunch of direct attached storage which is siloing your data, you can go put it into this common shared pool and I think that the other side of the house or flash array business is doing something really similar with NVMe, the flash array X is essentially commoditizing NVMe it's saying everybody has access to this high performance density and looking into the future with technologies like NVMe over Fabric, what we're really saying is your apps that used to use direct attached storage, there's no reason why they can't go to us to a sand-based architecture that offers rich data services and not compromise one IOTA on latency. Or access or any number of other activities as well. So we've got NVMe, NVMe over Fabric, flash, new approaches for thinking about packaging some of these things. Are there any other technologies that you envision on the horizon that are going to be really important to customers and that Pure is going to take advantage of? Yeah, you know, I really think that the other thing is once you collect all this stuff you need a way to tame the beast. You need a way to deploy your applications you need a way to catalog everything and honestly things like Kubernetes and container orchestration is becoming this platform where you deploy all of this stuff. And some of the assumptions that are baked into that really go back and tie in nicely with those other technologies in particular they assume that I can schedule this compute wherever I want and I have access to the data. So in that way having a fabric if you will between your compute and your data is essential and it's just another reason why siloing things off into particular units of compute is just really the architecture of the past and the architecture going forward is going to be to logically centralize and maybe put some smarts at that other layer saying hey if this data is in the public cloud let me schedule up there but if this data is in my data center let me schedule the compute down there but then not having to worry about the micro decisions about does it have to be in this rack or on this particular physical node all your data is accessible. But increasingly we're going to do things that move the compute both physically as well as logically closer to the data. You know 100% right but it's at what scale that you really want to get the data center right. Your compute should be running in the correct data center. Or the center of data right. Or the center of data right. You know get it in the right spot but then you don't want to have to worry about all the other micro constraints. You don't want you know if you look on the networking side of the world leaf spine networks are all about saying hey look there really is a uniform fabric for networking. We're trying to do the same thing in storage and just say look the storage is so performant there's no reason to silo. You can run your compute wherever you want if you've got a good networking fabric and you've got a good storage fabric the end of the day all your data is accessible to whatever new application you envision and you just there's no reason why you have to lock it up.  Yeah so we like to talk about moving from a world that is focused on infrastructure taking cost out making it static by removing all uncertainty to a world where we've known workloads and elastic capacity or elastic scale to a plastic world where plastic using of the physicals you know the physics sense is unknown workload unknown scale and just making sure that we have the option to use data any way we want as much as possible in the future. And I think that that's why you see the rise of service catalogs and self-service coming up in IT it's that plasticity that you have the brightest minds in your company trying to figure out what to do and you don't want to have infrastructure be this bottleneck that's causing everything to go slower or for people to say no you just always want to say yes. And that's why I think it's really exciting to see these technologies NVMe come out and say we've now got the performance to say yes. NVMe over fabric to say there's no compromise over latency and then honestly having this stuff packaged in things like FlashArrayX where the CIO or the CFO doesn't complain about breaking the bank as well because now these technologies are the status quo they're the standard there's no premium for them and if anyone's trying to charge you that premium you should really ask them why this is the new architecture this should be the only thing you offer in some sense. Yeah we're bringing all these new technologies into the economic envelope that IT has to be in for business today. That's right and you know you look at something like Flash memory it's not a new technology. I remember in college having a flash card to put into like a digital camera in the early days of digital cameras but for it to make it into the data center the thing that was critical was that economic aspect of it. So it's not just about being on the bleeding edge of technology but it's packaging that in a way that's actually palatable for the entire C-suite to consume inside your organization. And I remember my disc pack that I carried around in college from the PDP system that we had to use. All right, Neil Rocherajani, technical director of Pure Storage talking about the relationship between new technologies, data-centric architectures and digital business. Thanks very much for being on theCUBE. Thanks so much Peter. And once again I'm Peter Burris you've been participating in another theCUBE conversation till we talk again.


we've all got that one crazy family member. That weird uncle or that weird aunt that you just kind of put up with. Or maybe you are that weird family member. Sometimes I think I'm that for my family. But here's the thing. Your family can't be half as weird, half as diabolical as the Hapsburg dynasty. But before we go any further, you know what to do. Hit that subscribe button and give us a like. If you want to help support the channel, we have a Patreon page listed down below. I do want to give a special shout out to our producer Tiffany Monroe and her 501c3 where she offers Reiki classes and sessions as well as helping people with their spiritual disciplines. She is located here in Atlanta. But if you live elsewhere, you can always look at the website and contact her for certain services over the phone or over zoom. And I want to give another shout out to our community member, Adam, again, his book on multiverses. There's a snippet listed down below. He's an incredible writer. His email address has also listed down below. If you know an agency or a scout or a publishing house that would be interested in reading his work to publish it, please, please contact him. We're all here just helping each other out trying to make the world a better place. Welcome to esoteric Atlanta. My name is Bryce. And today we're going to be talking about Julius Caesar de Austria. Julius was a Hapsburg, not legally though, because he was the illegitimate child of Rudolph the second. Rudolph the second, our favorite Hapsburg with his closet of occult knickknacks and crazy manuscripts. Now, of course, in 2020, we don't really look at this whole illegitimate thing as serious anymore. Many people are born out of wedlock. It's no big deal in this modern time of ours. But for most of history, it's been a pretty big deal, like your parents had to be married in order for you to be a legitimate heir to your father's fortune. For example, if a child was not born into a legalized marriage, a lot of the time the child would not carry the family's last name. Well, this was true with Julius. He was the oldest of Rudolph's illegitimate children. In fact, Rudolph didn't even have legitimate children. That's how much of a quirky oddball he was for his time in history. He did, however, though, have a long time mistress by the name of Catherine Strada. I mean, I know court politics are a different life than any of us are even used to or would even understand now in modern times. But like, why didn't he just marry Catherine? Was she not up to snuff for his regal dynastical blood of the Habsburgs? You see, Rudolph II and Catherine had six children, quite a hefty brood for the Holy Roman Empire and for them not to be legal children. But you see, Rudolph did what he could to claim his children back in those days. No, they still didn't carry his last name, nor would they be able to become the emperor or empress because they weren't born into wedlock. However, he did provide them with really good educations and prepared them for having really powerful roles in court life. That's as good as it gets in this time in our history. Now, Julius was born in 1584, and again, his dad really worked to help him make something of his illegitimate life. It seems that Rudolph II really truly loved his son.  Now, the Habsburgs, again, they're quite famous for inbreeding. In fact, Rudolph II's parents were first cousins. I mean, everybody in the Habsburg family married each other because they wanted to keep the bloodline pure. They wanted to keep the dynasty within their own people. We know that inbreeding causes a lot of medical problems. In fact, today we have certain laws where you can't marry somebody unless they're like so many generations apart from you. I think maybe in the state of Georgia, it's like they have to be your fourth cousin in order for you to be eligible to get married. I don't know. If I can trace back a common ancestor with somebody is not happening anyway. I don't care for like 10th cousins. That's just too weird. It's not going to happen. But the Habsburgs, along with a lot of monarchs in the day, were totally cool with cousins mating. So the Habsburgs have become famous for a lot of deformations and mental issues as a result of years of inbreeding. One again, as we mentioned before, is the Habsburg chin, which is again believed to be a sign of inbreeding, the way the chin just dominates their whole face for the Habsburgs. Now, of course, they also are known to have a lot of heavy mental problems. We know that Rudolf II obviously struggled with depression as they called it back then, melancholy. He's not the only Habsburg to display signs of a mental disorder. Now, of course, because they are the Habsburgs, there was no really helping or explaining to them that what was going on with them was an issue with their brain and not just the divine right of God. I imagine living under a Habsburg reign could have in some cases been complete terror. Well, it seems that Julius also inherited some of the Habsburgs famous disorders. It appears that he was probably schizophrenic. No, you don't have to be inbred to have schizophrenia. Schizophrenia can happen to anyone, but it was common with the Habsburgs. Now, of course, this was the 1500s and this was a royal family, so understanding how to work with schizophrenia was not really a specialty of the times. And being that Julius was the son of Rudolf II, I'm sure that he got away with a lot. One could say he got away with murder, but that would be inaccurate. In 1602, Rudolf II purchased a castle located in the south of the Czech Republic. At this point, this was the southern part of Bohemia. This castle had existed since the 1200s. The dynastical line that owned the castle had died out. It had been purchased and taken over by another family who then sold it to Rudolf. You see, Rudolf was doing what any good father would do. He was creating a seat for his son to give his son some responsibility and a job in his kingdom. So in 1605, Julius moved into his new home. He was 21 years old. Well, it's seen that Julius grew quite an affection and obsession with a young lady in the village. She was the barber's daughter. Her name was Marquetta, and obviously being the barber's daughter, she was obviously a lot lower on the social ladder than the illegitimate son of the Holy Roman Empire in those days. Well, I say in those days, but I mean, frankly, the royalty does live in a different reality than the rest of us. Because of his obsession, Julius asked Marquetta to live in the castle with him as his lover. Of course, they were not to be married, but maybe just maybe this would be socially beneficial to Marquetta's family. Well, maybe it would have been socially beneficial to Marquetta's family if Julius was a kind person. But you see, it seems that Julius was a bit of a tyrant.  He routinely beat her and cut her. And one night, he thought he had killed her, and so he tossed her body out the window. Well, it seems that she didn't die. In fact, she landed on soft padding. She made her way back to her parents' house where she took some time to recover.  At this point, Marquetta's father put his foot down and said no. Well, because he said no, Julius had her father imprisoned and beaten for five weeks. After five weeks, her father relented and sent Marquetta back to the castle. And then on the 18th of February in 1608, Julius murdered Marquetta. But you see, the way in which he murdered her was completely maniacal.  I don't know if this was fun for him or if he felt like he had a right to do this. I don't know. What you see the thing is, is that Julius' father, Rudolph II, did not let his son off the hook. However, instead, Rudolph had his son imprisoned for life. Maybe the trauma of growing up with his uncle Philip in Spain and watching the torture of the Inquisition got to Rudolph to the point where he could not tolerate his son behaving in such a manner. His son eventually died in the prison in 1609. His schizophrenia had gotten so bad that he had refused to bathe. He was talking to himself, definitely not the healthiest of people. And after his death, they realized that an ulcer in his stomach had ruptured. Now, I don't know why a child of such privilege means would have an ulcer, but these are the Habsburgs. They are a cultist. There's probably a long line of trauma and traumatic rituals in their families. So not only did Julius inherit some of the traits of the Habsburgs, but he probably was exposed to a lot of stress as well. Unfortunately for Julius and for Marquetta, this resulted in him going crazy and murdering an innocent young woman, an innocent young woman who did not want to be where she was. But because of the statue of the ruling elite, she had no choice. In fact, as we look back on history, we see how many people lost their lives on the whim of the king or the emperor or even the pope. And I get excited when I look forward into the future and I realize those days of divine right are coming to an end. Nisara and Jisara law will not allow that. And with Nisara and Jisara law and with the end of divine right, we will all be viewed as equal, equal in the eyes of the creator and equal through our governments. Governments run by the people for the people, not run by the likes of the Habsburgs. All right, thank you again for sitting through another story. Again, thank you to all of our Patreons. Please remember to check out Tiffany's website down below. Again, if you have signed up for Patreon and you haven't heard from me or haven't sent your story in it, go ahead and email me the story that you want me to cover for this series. Again, thank you to Josh McKay for doing our music, a link to purchase the song, our opening song is in the description box below. And thank you to Todd Roderick for helping me produce this video. Again, a link to his band, The Flying Mystics are also listed in the description box below. I hope you guys have a great day and I will talk to you soon. Bye.


This is stock number 7522A. We are here at Summit Automotive in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. You're new and used RAM light duty truck headquarters. Remember, we are the guys with the trucks on 41. Today we are checking out this super clean light new 2017 RAM 1500 crew cab 5 foot 7 inch short box. This truck has the 3.0 liter Eco diesel V6 motor From this HD video, you will be able to tell that this truck is extremely clean all the way around Bright white is the color and we shoot all of our videos in 1080p So if you have HD capabilities on your computer tablet or smartphone device turn them on right now because it's like you're right here Looking at the truck with me. It comes with the 20 inch alloy rims with the chrome covers Goodyear Wrangler 275-60R20 tires that have just about all the tread lock No denser dings on that front fender The grille and the hood are absolutely perfect as well as the bumper. You can see it as the front sonar That's what these little dots are to let you know when you're getting close to stuff Passenger side rim is very clean as well and as you go down this side of the truck You can see just how clean the body is How reflective and mirror like that paint is We take these HD videos So if you are far away or even if you're close by and just cannot make the trip down You can still see the truck here the truck and have confidence in the vehicle that you're looking at before you even get here Cab is very nice and clean. I Didn't see one single dent or ding down this side of the truck. It has the wheel-to-wheel side steps Back rim is absolutely perfect as well And the back tires have just as much tread as the front tires It does have the plastic wheel well liners which keeps your frame and underbody looking like new As we come around to the back of the truck No dense or dings back here. It does have a full towing package which includes the receiver hitch four pin and seven pin wiring Dual rear exhaust the tailgate is absolutely perfect as well. It is a locking tailgate It has the LED bed lighting and you can see that the bed itself is in excellent shape I didn't see any denser dings Very very clean Locking tailgate backup camera And you can see yes, it is a big horn package As we go down this side of the truck just as clean as the passenger side Four full disclosure this back rim is absolutely perfect as well But very very clean down this side of the truck I didn't see any denser dings down this side either and Inside the big horn package. We have the gray cloth interior Both of these seats are heated you get a power driver seat with lumbar factory floor mats throughout power windows power locks power folding mirrors Has the auto headlamps and as we hop inside here this truck you can see has only 3,022 miles you get the seven inch tft display With the compass outside temperature and digital speedometer Has the heated leather wrapped steering wheel Cruise controls on that side bluetooth and audio controls and information center controls on that side This one has the 8.4 touchscreen radio Now this is the last year that you could get this radio and have the capabilities to put navigation on it So you can add nav to this radio It does not have it right now, but you can add it for 595 But you can do your heated seats and heated steering wheel buttons right here You can also check out your backup camera without actually put it in reverse and you get AM FM and Sirius XM radio capabilities This one has the eight speed turn dial automatic transmission the push button four-wheel drive You get the four-wheel drive auto feature with the bighorn package factory brake controller heated seats heated steering wheel buttons stability control tow-haw and rear and front bumper sensors you can turn those off and on dual climate control and 115 volt 150 watt plug-in. This one does have the Alpine Premium sound system passenger seat is very clean as well. No rips or tears on that. This truck has never been smoked in as a power sliding rear window and The homelink system for your garage door security systems and lighting systems and it has the 911 and assist buttons You get the 40-20-40 split bench seating like so and then there is storage underneath here as well We'll take a quick look at the back seats and then we will check out under the hood Being the crew cab you'd get a lot of room back here Back seats are just as clean as those front seats. No rips. Don't tears. No stains.  You got storage underneath the seat there And you have storage in the floor on this side and one on the passenger side you can put ice and drinks and stuff in here and take these out and clean them up and Really nice feature For this truck And we'll take a quick look under the hood Heated mirrors built-in directional signals in the mirrors just a really clean truck inside and out only 3,000 miles Purchased to your new Service tier engine base very clean runs very smooth. This truck has been fully safety and inspected by our service shop Has a fresh oil and filter change all the fluids have been checked and topped off and this truck is 100% ready to go to see more pictures of this truck or one of our other 400 new and used cars trucks SUVs minivans Wranglers half tons three-quarter tons you name it. We got to go to our website www.summitauto.com Full pictures and descriptions of every single vehicle on our lot videos of every single used vehicle that we have all at Summit auto.com if you want to check out just our used used vehicles you can go to trucks on 41.com check that out and If you want to make this one year is give us a call right now<PHONE_NUMBER> Ask for one of our sales associates standing by to take your call. Once again that number is<PHONE_NUMBER> Thanks again for checking out the video if you want to check out more go to youtube.com slash summit auto Remember to like subscribe and share on this vehicle and all the videos you see there In fact in a second you will see a link to subscribe to our YouTube channel on your left a Linked more used inventory truck videos like this one on your right If you have not been to our website on the bottom a link to this truck on our website Click those check us out and we really look forward helping with this super clean 2017 ram 1500 crew cab short box. Thanks again


Learning something new not only changes our perspectives and behavior, it actually changes the structure of our brains. Memories and experiences are recorded in the brain by altering the physical connections between neurons. Until recently, however, the protein signals that caused these tiny structural changes were too small to measure with available imaging methods. But researchers at the Moxplunk Florida Institute for Neuroscience created ultra-sensitive sensors and revealed the activity of two of the proteins that write memories into neural circuits in the brain. Individual neurons have many branches, or dendrites, and each dendrite can be covered with thousands of tiny bumps called spines where messages are received from other neurons. Changes in spine size are one way memories are recorded. When lots of messages are being passed and a spine is very active, it gets bigger. Many proteins need to be activated to make spines grow. Extracellular signal-regulated kinase, or IRC, and protein kinase A, or pKa, are two of the most important. But because the signals put out by existing IRC and pKa sensors were too weak to pick up in spines, scientists weren't sure how IRC and pKa activation is translated into memory-related changes in spine structure. To overcome this limitation, the researchers modified existing sensors so that they output three times more signal, making it possible to measure IRC and pKa activation within single spines. Then they expressed the sensors in hippocampal neurons in mouse brain slices and artificially stimulated individual spines. As expected, stimulation made the spines grow and activated both IRC and pKa. But the ultra-sensitive sensors revealed that the kinases weren't active just in the spine. The activity also spread into the dendrite and nearby spines. This indicates that the influence of stimulation spreads to multiple nearby spines and could facilitate growth of those as well. The scientists wanted to be sure the apparent spread wasn't caused by movement of the sensors rather than the spread of kinase activity. So they tethered the sensors to an anchor protein in the spine. IRC and pKa activity spread over a similar distance when they used the anchored sensors, confirming they were witnessing the spread of kinase activity. This activity spillover might serve a useful messaging function in memory formation. Spreading of the signal into the dendrite is likely to trigger the spine growth-related events that occur there, such as exocytosis of membrane receptors and protein synthesis. In addition, converting temporary changes in spine size into permanent memories requires gene transcription and subsequent production of new proteins. So the spread of kinase activity out of individual spines may help spines and dendrites tell the nucleus to start transcribing genes and build proteins. The unprecedented sensitivity of the new sensors could enable scientists to further define the roles of pKa and IRC in various forms of cellular signalling, such as cell division, differentiation, and proliferation, as well as synaptic plasticity. And because abnormal pKa and IRC activity can also cause psychiatric disorders and cancer, increased understanding of their signalling may also help improve treatments for countless patients.


Hello everyone, I'm going to present our work, Integral Matrix Glamour and the Ledges Gaussian Sampler without flow. This is a joint work with Leo Tuka, Stephen Galbraith, and Toma Plerz. I am Yang Yu. This work is about the interaction between the mathematician, black range, and Gauss. Our main result is the Ledges Gaussian Sampler. Compared with the previous algorithm, this sampler does not with floating point arithmetic, and it achieves a similar quality but with less memory and simpler base sampling. Our techniques are some algorithms for the integral gram decomposition problem, that is, given a integral positive definite matrix, sigma, found some integral matrix A such that A-A transpose equals sigma. This can be viewed as an extension of black-range-force-well theorem to matrices. Actually, black-range-force-well theorem corresponds to the case n equals 1 and m equals 4. Okay, let's start with some background. A Ledges is a discrete subgroup in Euclidean space, and it can be expressed by a basis. A Ledges has infinitely many bases, we call a basis consisting of a short vector of good bases. This grid Gaussian is an important distribution of a Ledges. It is specified by three parameters, the Ledges aeol, the synthesis, and the covariance matrix, sigma. For a discrete Gaussian, the probability of each Ledges point is proportional to the value of the Gaussian function. In particular, when sigma is a squared identity matrix, we call the discrete Gaussian spherical, and the parameter A is the width of the spherical Gaussian. With the good bases, we can efficiently resemble from some spherical Gaussian of a relatively small width, but the Gaussian itself makes nothing about the good bases. For this reason, this width Gaussian is widely used in Ledges critical systems, including signatures, IBE, ABE. In these cases, the good basis is given by the Ledges trapdoor, and the target distribution is some spherical Gaussian of an even center. The quality of the used sampler is the minimal Gaussian width it can achieve. Actually, a smaller Gaussian width implies a higher security level, then higher quality of the sampler. Currently, there are two main approaches to do Ledges Gaussian sampling. The first one is the KGPV sampler. It was proposed by Clay, and then first used for Ledges crystal topography by the famous GPV paper. This sampler can be viewed as a randomized version of a Babayi-Laris-Plain algorithm. And the second approach was proposed by Packard. And the Packard sampler can be viewed as a randomized version of a Babayi-Larning-Orth algorithm. Compared with the KGPV sampler, Packard's algorithm has some quality loss, but it is more efficient. In addition, Packard's sampler turns out convenient in Ledges trapdoor setting. In this work, we focus on Packard's sampler. Let's recall it in detail. The high-level idea of Packard's algorithm is Gaussian convolution. Note that with the sampling basis B, it is easy to sample from some discrete Gaussian of covariance BB transpose. Actually, this can be done by first doing some integer Gaussian sampling, and then performing a transformation of B. This Gaussian is non-seferical. To rectify it to a spherical Gaussian, Packard proposed to add some of the perturbation vector of a certain covariance sigma t. And he showed that the sum of these two non-seferical Gaussians can be a spherical one, just like the case of continuous Gaussian. And the sampling of perturbation vector is independent of the input center, so it can be performed in the offline phase. In the online phase, we only need to deal with one-dimensional Gaussian sampling, and that is relatively easy. Indeed, the online sampling can be fully performed over integers. However, the offline sampling's deal heavily relies on floating-point arithmetic. That is because, on the one hand, it requires to do some continuous Gaussian sampling, and on the other, it requires some gram roots A of sigma p. And the only suggested way to compute such A is the charity decomposition, so that A is the square matrix but of high precision. There are many drawbacks of floating-point arithmetic. For example, it requires to do some 10-day numerical stability analysis, and high precision would lead to extra storage and lower efficiency. Moreover, floating-point arithmetic suffers from weak terminalism. That is, even with the same input and the same randomness, the result can be different on different machines. This may be dangerous for some applications like signatures and IPEs. So, we want to get rid of floating-point arithmetic in the whole linear Gaussian sampling. This is the motivation of our work. Our main idea is to use a rectangle but integral gram root to replace the previous square but real charity root. To this end, we formally studied the problem integral gram decomposition problem, IGDP. And the IGDP problem is specified by four parameters, where n is the dimension of the matrix sigma, and b is an upper bound of the spectral norm of sigma. Both n and b are determined by the best crystal system itself. And d is proportional to the final Gaussian weight, so it is mainly in determining the quality of the final Gaussian sampler. And m equals the number of required integer sampling. In our sampler, the integer sampling are centered. Our goal is to solve the IGDP problem with fixed n and b, while keeping d is only slightly larger than b, and m relatively small. We note that, for the case n equals 1, the IGDP problem can be solved by Lagrange-Fortz-Riem theorem with m equals 4. And for general case, our idea is to reduce the IGDP instance of a large dimension to the one of a smaller dimension. And this can be expressed as this reduction. To build such a reduction, we make use of gauge decomposition. Actually, by a gauge decomposition, we can express a vector consisting of large coefficients as the product of a small matrix and the gauge vector g. So, we can first compute a gram matrix according to the sigma. And then, adding this gram matrix on sigma, we can clean out the element in the first row and the corner. And this remaining diagonal element can be dealt with by the fourth square decomposition. And this lower red block actually corresponds to the IGDP instance of a dimension m minus 1. So, we get this reduction. Repeating this reduction, we can finally compute an integral gram ring A or matrix EI minus sigma. And the resulting matrix A has a regular structure like this. Indeed, the core number of A can be much larger than m. But the interesting fact here is that such a rectangle matrix A can be efficiently stored and the overall storage is independent of the core number. That is because for large pyramid K, the gauge base B would be small. So, the off-diagonal elements here are small. So far, we have solved some IGDP instances. But the initial decomposition only applies to some large pyramid D. This implies a significant overhead on the final gosh week. To overcome this issue, we also consider another reduction called item value reduction. This reduction allows us to reduce the IGDP instance for large matrix to the one for small matrix. And to build it, our idea is simple. We pre-compute some more approximate square root of matrix EI minus sigma. Then, to decompose the matrix EI minus sigma, we only need to decompose the matrix D minus B times I minus sigma prime. And the spectrum norm of sigma prime is much less than the spectrum norm of sigma. Note that the overhead is only related to the small matrix sigma prime. So it can be negligible compared with the original pyramid B. And this leads to a negligible overhead on the final gosh week. Combining the item value reduction and the initial decomposition, we get our final decomposition. In some advanced applications like H-I-B-E, A-B-E, the spectrum norm of matrix can be very large. And in such a setting, the final decomposition could be like this. We first perform the item value reduction once, and then we apply the initial decomposition with K equals 3. The resulting integral gram root will have a core number 9A. And this method applies to some B, it's only slightly larger than B. With such an integral gram root, we can adapt the cactus sampler to an integer version. This is the comparison between our sampler and the cactus one. We can see our algorithm achieves a symmetrically better storage. That is because impactors sampler is required to store Choritz's root. And the coefficient in this matrix requires a precision about lambda B. Here, lambda is the security parameter, that is often said as big OA. Also, the basic sampling in our algorithm is easy to implement, and no float is used in our algorithm. The quality of the final gosh is almost the same as the one in the cactus approach. So, we have seen the sampling algorithm for generic integer matrix. For better performance, actually many less criticisms are built in the ring setting. The previous algorithms can indeed apply to the ring setting by simply viewing the ring element as its matrix form. However, the decomposition algorithm would break the underlying ring structure, so that it would lose the efficiency improvement of the ring. To maintain the ring advantage in the ring setting, we want the integral gram root to preserve the underlying structure. Driven by this, we formally studied the problem IGDP problem over the ring. Here, we introduced the underlying ring as new parameters. In this work, we focused on the case of the power of the atomic ring. To solve the generalized IGDP problem over the ring, we followed a similar idea of projecting the problem into smaller dimensions. But this time, we required to decompose some polynomial in the ring setting. To do so, we need to include a reduction on the underlying ring. And by this reduction chain, we can write a polynomial D minus A as the sum of a theory of the polynomial AI AF star. Here, the star denotes the complex conjugation. And note that the matrix form of A star is actually the transport of the matrix form of A. And here D is the integer. So, this can be viewed as an analog of a four-quad decomposition for the power of two-sector atomic ring. To build such a reduction on the underlying ring, we developed a new tool called the ring gauge. Let's recall some simple facts. First, a polynomial A can be expressed by two sub-ring elements, Fe and f-quad, where Fe corresponds to the even part and f-quad corresponds to the odd part of A. Second, when the polynomial A is self-adjoint, that is, f equals f star, then this odd part actually is the sum of some polynomial and its complex conjugation. To project the problem onto a sub-ring, we only need to clean out the odd part of some polynomial. And this can be done by simply adding some polynomial A as star on f. And we note that this projection is also compatible with the gauge decomposition. Instead of adding one polynomial A as star, we can first compute the theory of A i according to gauge decomposition. And then adding the sum of A i as star. So we call the combination of gauge decomposition and projection as a ring gauge. And by the ring gauge, we can build the reduction on the underlying ring. Okay, with an integral gram root over ring, we can adapt the previous algorithm as a ring-based Gaussian sampler. Compared with the previous generic solution, the ring-based sampler achieves a quasi-linear improvement in both storage and running time. But the cost is that it requires more basic sampling. Because the resulting gram root in the ring setting has an even larger core number than the generic solution. Okay, to conclude, in this work, we formally studied the IGDP problem, integral gram decomposition problem. This can be viewed as an extension of a large-range 4-square theorem to matrices. As an application, we propose a large Gaussian sampler. It does not rely on closing point arithmetic. And it can be truly performed over integer. That is my talk. Thank you.