very pleased to introduce to you Alistair. Alistair is over to you. Thank you very much. Give me a second to work through the design metaphors so I can share my screen. Here we are. I was lovely listening to Don. Right, digital accessibility, three laws, a contradiction and some useful approaches. So what I want to start with is very simply, if we're talking about digital accessibility, let's make sure we're all on the same page. Oh, forgive me. I'm going to switch captions on. I'm using Google Slides in built captioning. I know that it can be brilliant for some people, but I know some people find captions really distracting. If you're of the latter category, what you can do just as a sort of temporary thing is worth knowing about. You can always pull yourself up something like a notepad, blank notepad and just drop it over the bottom like that, resize it so you can't see. So I prefer to use captions because if I use captions, people can block them. If I don't use them, people that need them can't invent them. So that's a quick tip. So let's go. I want to start in the chat pane. Let me find my way back there. I want you to very simply define some examples of digital accessibility. So could you do that, please? Give examples of digital accessibility. Alt-Tax, thank you, Sheldon. Following guidelines. Okay, that's helpful, Leigh, that sort of take us back to the beginning. What are everyday simple things? So keyboard shortcuts, aria elements. Now, what's brilliant about this is keep going. Don't stop and listen to me. Listen to the crowd. The crowd sourced wisdom is brilliant. So a load of things here. And what's interesting is that some of these are very technical. Some of these are almost invisible because they're residing in the code. Some of these examples here are just what a creator would do. It's creator practice. It's what you do with your word document or with your presentation. So loads of great examples. Fantastic. That's a better list than I would have given you. So thank you for that. And that puts us on the right footing because we've seen then that digital accessibility is all these different things. It's about being personalizable and it's about being flexible. So what is the legislation? Now, I've called this three laws and a contradiction or something like that. And I'm starting with two bits of legislation because these are the bits that are really important. Back from 1995 through to the Equality Act in 2010, we've had legislation that still applies that is focused on individual disabled people and is predicated around this idea of reasonable adjustment. And if you summarize that in a quote, it's really, if there's a problem, we might fix it if it's reasonable for us to fix it. And then on the other hand, we have the new legislation which a lot of people are very exercised about at the minute. We've got September the 23rd, exactly four weeks, I believe. And this focuses on something very different. It focuses on organizational responsibility, removing barriers at source, meeting the so-called accessibility requirements. And if we were to summarize that in a quote, the quote would be, these are the problems and this is what we're doing to address them. These are completely contrasting paradigms. They work in parallel. So your students will still be in a position where that person-centered reasonable adjustment will apply to any one of your disabled students. But alongside that in parallel, you have legislation that is requiring process-centered approach where you're meeting accessibility requirements. Let's just unpack these very briefly because it has implications for what we look at later. The person-centered approach, if we look at that paradigm, it actually has some benefits. And from a disabled user's point of view and the organization's, there are some benefits. So for the disabled person, it is personalized. I have an issue. I go and ask for support on that issue, and I get support. And the support I give, maybe the alternative format I give, won't necessarily be 100% accessible, but it will be 100% accessible to my particular requirement. So it's contextualized. It's dynamic. Somebody else might go with a slightly different request for an inaccessible content, and they get a different solution. The benefits for the organization are similarly that it's kind of reactive. You don't have to do everything in advance. It's contextualized. And I say this not with cynicism, but with the realism of what it's like out there. It can be arguable. You could say, actually, I don't think that is reasonable. We don't believe that's a reasonable request. And so you can push back. However, you can already see the flip side of all of this is that for a disabled person, the reasonable adjustment process and that legislation that protects them also gives them real problems because it needs energy to ask. It needs courage to actually argue and say, no, actually, I think it is reasonable for me to have an accessible version of whatever the content is. It's also a needless waste of energy because I could say, why is it that every disabled person in the last five years doing this course has had to come and ask for exactly the same adjustment? Why wasn't it made accessible in the first place? And the other big issue is that the culture hasn't changed. It's just that disabled people have had to adapt to the culture. The problem for the organization is it's unpredictable. You do not know at what point a particular resource will be needed by a particular student with a particular disability. So it's completely unpredictable. You're making up responses on the fly. You are legally very vulnerable as a result of that. Even without the new legislation, you're vulnerable because you are not being able to evidence that you have anticipatory duty, that you have policies and strategies in place. And fundamentally, the worst bit from an institutional perspective is that there's no institutional improvement taking place. So those are the issues. When you compare that with the process-centered legislation, which is the one we're looking at now, the public sector web accessibility regulations, here the premise is threefold. You will meet the accessibility requirement because it is unreasonable to create content that isn't accessible, or perhaps not that isn't because we all know in the real world, sometimes things are more complicated. But if it is needlessly inaccessible, that is a real issue. Disabled people should not need to ask for an accessible version. And frankly, when people say, oh, we've only had two years to adapt to this, I do point out that it was 1999, the first web content accessibility guidelines were published. And it was 1995, that the disability legislation first suggested that reasonable adjustments and anticipatory duty should be in place. So those are some of the things that I think you can push back on. Now, the accessibility requirement, wow, that's a lot. If you think of it in terms of driving a car to use some metaphors, then the accessibility requirement, when you look at the web content guidelines, it's being under the bonnet, the cogs, the fan belts, the valves, all of that stuff. But actually, the user requirement is like sitting in the driver's seat, and can I adjust the seats? Can I tilt it back? Can I make the mirrors work? So two very different perspectives on this. But this is where things begin to get a little complicated, because there is a legislation conundrum. It's great to say this new public sector web accessibility regulations do last what they should have been doing, or what perhaps we should have been doing for 20 years, 25 years. But here's a conundrum, because a good deal of the content you have on your websites and your VLEs, you don't own the copyright for. So for example, we have a situation where if you've got ebooks, or you've got journal articles and so on, where you don't have the IPR, the copyright and rights performance regulations. So here's a third bit of legislation I'm talking about this session. That legislation tells you it is entirely legal for you to take content, which you don't have the copyright for, but you do have legitimate lawful access, entirely legal for you to take that content, to take it apart, to make it accessible in different ways to different students, to create a completely accessible version. That's legal. However, it's only legal for personal use of disabled people. But the public sector bodies web legislation actually says something entirely opposite. It says that any failure to comply with the accessibility requirement, including the content that I have purchased, that I have licensed, that I have given students legitimate access to, any failure for that to meet the accessibility requirement is a failure for me as an organisation to make a reasonable adjustment. Now that's serious, because on the one hand it's saying you can only change that content for disabled people. On the other hand it's saying you have to change it for everyone. So you're damned if you do, you're damned if you don't, because your organisation will include this huge range of content and you only have the right to make and supply accessible copies of copyrighted material to disabled people, but you have to somehow do it for everyone. So there is a conundrum here. You have three bits of legislation that you're having to negotiate around, that an individual student has an individual right to individualised support under the Equality Act, that all people should have access to digital accessible versions of all your content or accessible versions of all your digital content, all people should as a matter of right have that and then that actually you can, yeah you've got the rights to change copyrighted material, but only for disabled people. So what a nightmare. So here are the five strategies and I'm going to ask you, as I go through these, I'm going to ask you to reflect on this because in a moment I'm going to give you a link to an interactive Google document where I'm going to try to get some crowdsourced solutions, but I think there's these five broad approaches, procure wisely, check your suppliers' accessibility information. If they haven't got an accessibility statement, push back and tell them that you need one. Jessica Wikes at City University London has done a brilliant job recently, she's worked with five suppliers, pushed back, said we need an accessibility statement from you, you don't have one, do you want us to license these things again and she's ended up with the suppliers in the space of just a few weeks creating accessible accessibility statements for them, but obviously for the entire sector as well. Or if you're talking about eBooks, for example, the Aspire project has got scores for all the key suppliers of eBooks, the main publishers and the main platform providers that UK universities use. So ask your supplier if they are on that Aspire list and what their score is. And if they can't give you good accessibility information ask for a license reduction to cover your legitimate additional expense in either creating an accessibility statement yourself on their behalf or indeed supporting the students that can't use their inaccessible content. So procure wisely and influence academic practice. So I call this a sliding scale of preposterous demands because I know sometimes getting academics to do things outside the comfort zone is a little bit of an uphill struggle. So here's the first one a mandatory minimum of digital content on reading lists. So no longer is it okay to just point students to 15 hard copies in the library but have mandatory digital content that in itself would help. Maybe mandatory accessibility training on document accessibility. So you don't get a situation where one part of the organization is frantically trying to improve accessibility and the other part of the organization is still happily creating inaccessible content on a daily basis. Here's another as you go up that sliding scale of preposterous demands. How about the an organizational policy that departments need to support the additional costs for inaccessible resources. So if the commission purchase create inaccessible resources then maybe a central team will put them right but the department pays the costs. Or how about course leaders actually being responsible for course level accessibility statements that includes known issues and what your remediation plans are. And that sliding scale there will certainly help ownership of the academic practice that could push forward accessible practice. Train students strategically. Most students have not got a clue when they're on a journal platform or an ebook platform they have not got a clue whether they would get a better accessibility experience for their particular need by using the online platform, the PDF download, the EPUB download, the HTML version. They have no idea. So each of those has a very different accessibility profile and even more so depending on the tool that you've used to access them. I thought that might be the case Chris. I know I'm trading on thin ice here. And DIY remediation. There's loads of things you can do even if you've got a particularly inaccessible PDF. I can take an inaccessible PDF just a perhaps a scanned copy of a journal article. I can drop that in Google Drive, turn it into a Google Doc. It will automatically do the OCR. I've already improved that enormously. So there's a list there of browser plugins students could use, Office 365 options, inaccessible PDF that doesn't reflow nicely, bring it into Word. You read it in immersive reader or use the web layout view in Word in order to read it. So lots of different ideas there. But this is where I'm just going to go very quickly through the last couple of last options because I want to see what you use. Advocate broadly. Lobby just collections. Why are they not pushing back and not saying they're not? But why would you have to create accessibility statements for things that you're you're procuring or collecting from them? So anybody you can lobby, lobby. Lobbying is good fun. Do it and explain effectively. So that's where your accessibility statement might say, look, you can probably do X, Y and Z on these platforms, but you're going to struggle with PQ&R. So those are the bits that you might need to come and get us to help you with. So let's go now over to you. I've got a supplementary activity. I'm going to give you a link in the chat pane. Let me just get my link out and what I'd like you to do on that chat pane link. Here it is. If you open up that and I will bring that across onto the screen so you can see that as well. We've got a Google Doc there and I just want you to spend a couple of minutes now. It's on the second page of that document. So there's a navigation down the right hand bottom right. And just a couple of minutes on how your organization deals with copyrighted content. You don't have to name your organization. I'm just interested in you going down through that list. Some of you think, no, we don't really do that or maybe you do all of those. But I'd like you, each of you, there's only 80 of you, so it won't take long if each person put in just one, filled in one of those lines, what you do that you think is good practice, then we've got a crowdsourced document of 80 different good ideas. And if you do something completely different from all of that, there is one at the bottom called other approaches. So I'm going to give you a minute to do that and then that will give us five minutes for questions at the end. If you need that link again, I'll tell you, if it's not loading for you, I can give you the direct link because sometimes accessing a Google Doc from within another tool can be a little bit more tricky. So just give me a second and I'll open that up. This is where I find I've shut down my Google Drive. I knew I shouldn't have done that. I'm going to give you the direct link to the Google Doc and hopefully that will work for anybody where the other one didn't work. And now I just have to find my way back to where it's blackboard gone. Oh, there's blackboard. Is that blackboard? Yes, that's blackboard. Here we go. Direct link. Oh, somebody's done it already. Thank you, Shakir. Brilliant. So there's the link to the Google Doc directly. And if you wanted the link to the supplementary resource, which I'd quite like you to have because it does have some other content on there that will be useful to you. The supplementary resource is here. So we've got 50 odd people writing in there at the minute, which is brilliant. Please do that if you're interested in the joy of auto captions. Look at the screen. Oh, it's just gone. We had 50 old people rather than 50 odd people. Just while people are completing that document, I can see there's lots of busy typing going on. If you would like to ask a question and you'd rather do it over the mic than through the chat, then you can raise your hand and we can ensure that your microphone is enabled so that you can do that. So I'm going to just briefly look at the last couple of slides now. So you see what's there. We'll give you the link to the slides right at the end as well so you can come back and explore those at your leisure. One of the things about creating accessibility statements and about telling students what does work and doesn't work on the different systems you've got is that there's a big difference between being compliant and actually letting compliance change your culture. Along with some other colleagues, I've developed the FACTS model for accessibility statements, looking at making them formative, actionable, compliant, transparent and supportive. And if you are busy creating accessibility statements at the moment, as I'm sure you will be, then there's a really nice link to, well there's lots of different links on here, but particularly in that supplementary resource that we just looked at where you've been busy filling in, there's also, if I just bring that on the screen for a minute, you'll also see on the third page, down the bottom, I've got the embedded ASPIRE guidelines where what we do, we've got a list of things, it's almost like a checklist. You know, it does your statement, do this, does it do that, but it goes way beyond compliance. Level one and level two is about compliance and then we go on to user experience. Does it tell people about colors and contrasts, magnification and so on. That's well worth being aware of. And then the final elements, well that was the final element, so any questions really in the last five minutes? Excellent, thank you much. Yep, we've got one question there from Tundi. It says, I would be interested in hearing who is leading on accessibility within institutions across various stakeholders, is it web teams, marketing, education, research data computing services, disability teams? It's a brilliant question Tundi and the issue is that is every one of those and the organizations that you know, I'm aware of those organizations where it's lots of different groups of people. The thing that I would say is that if it only belongs to one team, it is going to really struggle to be effective because it needs to be supported as far up the the chain as possible because ultimately it involves job descriptions, ultimately it involves quality assurance and ultimately it involves things like self-assessment reviews. It might even involve your policy changes. No, you can't do that from halfway down the organization. There's got to be ownership higher up so the broader the team the better but also the higher up it coming from the commitments coming from the better it is. Okay, do we have any other questions? Anybody like to come across the mic where you can slide it into the chat? Yep, we've got one there. Scott, yeah. Maybe you think you find the effect of it, do you think it's been at the forefront? Yeah, I think it's had a mixed impact Scott because in some ways I think it's it's almost provided the excuse for people, oh my goodness we can't look at accessibility because we're so busy going online but at the same time I've also had the opposite where because people are having to go online and so much is online and they haven't got the friendly disability support team working individually with students on a Thursday afternoon to take them through content they're struggling with. I think it's also in some ways really highlighted that this is something that's really really important so it is a mixture. I think we might have time for one more quick question if anybody's got one. Feel free to raise your hand if you'd rather do it over the microphone. Okay, I don't think I can see any more questions or people typing in their Allister so this will bring you to the end of your presentation and so if you'd all like to find the clap function within our emojis in our chat we're going to give a big round of applause to Allister. That was absolutely brilliant presentation. I very very very much enjoyed that and really really useful for what I'm doing at the moment so I appreciate that yet lots of rounds of applause coming in and don't forget that recordings will be available on the resources section of the platform so once again Allister thank you so much for that presentation, very enjoyable.


Hey, it's Anfa and this is day five of my making-off for the FM challenge. Now, let's listen what we have so far. All right, so this is a common problem where the first bar, the first clip disappears, so I'm gonna go Ctrl-MiddleClick Ctrl-RightClick, actually. I'm gonna just append a little better Change the name. I think we need more distortion in this To be honest with you very much more We really need to distort the shit out of it. No, that's nice I think we have too much of a decay, so I'm going to use a gate. I also want to add a Sightchain compressor with the kick. I'm not sure. Oh, yeah, we have a sidechain bus So no no no no need for Sightchain compressor. It's already there Yeah, it's there, it's doing its job. I think we need to add some automated effects on this bass Let's play around with a comp filter, maybe. However, I would like to use it inside of this basically within A split signal, so we are just Two instances, please Let's bypass the lows and Just two not three and the highs will go here Go back. Yep. Now let's automate the comp filter band separation Just basically the cutoff frequency, but yeah to play well shift Z. I pressed F to maximize the See what can do. Oh Yeah pretty radical Bit too much. I would say let's try maybe. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, that's lovely. Let's repeat that and go up Whoa Nope and just dive on this note. See what was gonna happen. Could be weird. Yeah Yeah, this is very low. So it's gonna sound like a delay. I'll just go pretty high with this That's pretty sweet Let's play with everything else Yeah, very very nice. Okay Let's save this as a new Snapshot. How about if we Rump up Excellent, this makes me wanna. I don't know what to do. I have some idea. I want to put a filter there, too Or maybe a band pass Yes, a band pass manual config one instance again bypassing the bass frequencies Just operating on the mids and highs and One media output need more Okay, this is gonna be good. Oh There I should wolf shape this before I think I should wolf shape it before and after See, yeah, definitely Two wolf shapers are better than one. Yeah, pretty harsh pretty aggressive. I Think we can back off the feedback a little bit because Okay, I think I want the filter actually after No more manual config. Yeah, let's just use it here. No now we have my multiple outputs Should be an easy way to undo that somehow without having to go here and remove We also need to think There might be some DC offset Let's put it before The gate. What is this sound? Why is there? Oh, yeah, she's in fuel of shapers here. Oh Yeah, we're just starting this quite a lot. I Think the yeah, I think we're having too much processing happening. I Hope it's not gonna crush anything. So I'm gonna save the session. Hello. It should be good All right, let's make this a band pass Yeah, we need another crossover. All right, let's just copy this I know let's just go copy this and this Copy paste Right now put the filter here and I'll just play with the routing Oh One instance One media output bypassing the lows Doing things to the mids and highs Okay, right and the mixer me to swap these That should be good and again we have this I've been fixing this once I have to fix it twice. All right Yeah, that's a great because now whatever we do We have this low Low frequency sub bass basically there Because without it this doesn't doesn't work. So yeah, now I can automate the call filter Frequency and we have a band pass Wow, whatever that is Now let's make it play Oh, let's see how that sounds. Oh, yeah, let's just make a bigger ramp from lower to higher and just slowly following the dial And it's going up again. Oh, yeah, just Just getting back up and just getting again Do like a ramping logarithmically That's too high And this is ramping even more Logarithmically and this slowly fall Actually, no, I should be ramping down logarithmically too This oh, that's nice. I like let's save it and now Let's play the whole part In the end we need to add some multi band compression to even out to kind of crush the Is this thing is just to crush the input Now that's pretty sweet, let's add an equalizer at the end or maybe a compressor just to even out everything Even after the multi-band compression And yeah, the EQ is mandatory. I think yeah, I should probably put the EQ before the compressor because you know fitting an unbalanced Sound to a compressor will give you an unbalanced compression basically if you know I Wait a minute we have a flanger also here that doesn't isn't automated. We should fix that. I think I forgot about it Yeah, and that was that was messing up our sound No, it's something else Something else something It's not electric bass something is not perfectly fine with this I'm gonna see maybe if I said to master I Think still doesn't sound very nice Is there some reverb Because that would explain everything. Oh, no, there's Something is the heck something's not right something weird is happening something very weird. I didn't actually Want let's disable all the Modulation effects and see Yeah, it sounds doubled here.  I think it's just a patch Oh I think we need more DC offset removers because something is not right And I think it's because of DC offset After every wolf shaper, let there be a DC offset remover And maybe it's gonna That's not perfect now is better. Well, yeah, it's weird very weird This isn't to the both Sounds I think that doubled sound is actually because of I'm overloading DSP load I think the doubled sound is actually because I'm overloading DSP load. Yeah Wow, I have too much effects man, but you know what? They said it's okay to bounce if you want to save Processing powers, so I think I'm gonna do that. I'm gonna make myself a couple of audio tracks free cold and freezer And I'm gonna freeze the first base. Okay, so I'm gonna go Get input from Base one base one left right. Yep I'm just gonna record this My goodness. I'm overloading my system so hard. Okay, let's disable the electric base track Yep Now the DSP load should go down. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, it went down significantly. I can sample this record this track Nice now I can just disable this one Which is gonna save me CPU time, I actually need to freeze this base too Because this is the problem the biggest offender the worst offender I have actually oh My goodness, I have actually managed to to tank To kill my rising 71700 CPU with DSP load with Track well that didn't happen to me Freezer out. Oh, this is out. I need I should configure in Hello I'm I'm a bit afraid that the recording could be a bit corrupted because of this Thing hanging me a bit Okay, so it's all electric base. It's not really electric basis electronic base Ideas change. Okay. Let's let's just past my goodness.  Okay, the whole Hang on stay there. Okay. I have bounced it in I Have bounced it in a freewheeling mode. So I have no extras now. We have it on that on another track.  I need to redo this hold on a second All right, it should be it should be okay now Let's disable this track. So we have DSP load again at reasonable levels. Nice. Let's let's see if it works I think it sounds decent Okay, I'm not touching that because I'm basically not allowed to Okay, let's let's work on different things Or maybe Maybe I'm gonna finish this for now because it's actually kind of late. I need to go to sleep Tomorrow is Monday. I gotta gotta go Gotta go work my work my job Okay. Yeah, thanks for watching. I hope that it was useful. I'll see you in the next day of this making off Yeah Bye


The press told President Biden, if you don't get inflation under control, your presidency will suffer a fate worse than death. You retired too? Not me. I'm in my prime. And President Biden was like, oh come on man, how could you even tell if I have a face worse than death? If Edwards gets wind of this, he'll use it against you in the campaign. He'll try to prove that you're incompetent. I can prove that as well as he can. Yeah, it's impossible.  Yeah, I should know. I saw death just last night while he was checking his watch. Little Han says it's time to rock and roll. I was right next to him, and I still couldn't see his face. From the Pentagon, sir, we just decoded it. Oh good, here, help me with this. My eyes are ceramic. A bazooka round, a little big one. Where's that Okinawa? The one without the Indians. It's the final orders. We strike tomorrow at 0600. Excellent. Wake me up at 0530. Not face, fate. Fate worse than death, the press corrected. Well gentlemen, we've waited a long time to hear this. In exactly five hours and 17 minutes, we hit the enemy toast. I think that's the enemy coast, sir. Huh? Coast? I'll take a little more planning, but it doesn't matter. And President Biden was like, well, I don't know. Death was looking like he was in pretty good shape to me. If you have trouble hitting, you're objecting. Your secondary targets are here and here. An accordion factory and a mime school.  I mean, honestly, death looks like he's in such good shape he could probably decapitate someone with that swing. Good luck, gentlemen. Link, take over. Oh, there's one more thing. That might not get that's probably for me.


Everybody forest here ripping 23 24 Bowman Chrome University Chrome basketball hobby and the light seven box number nine or random teams. Good luck I said that's a 10 four and six Good luck. They're wrong names first one Two three four five six seven eight nine and ten Robert s down to Robert s and the teams here one Two three four five six seven eight nine and ten Michigan State down to Stanford Bro, it was sick. I'm still shaking bro. Honestly When the Mohammed came out it was like lost for words Robert s Michigan State Greg H Texas Norfolk an okay state Jonathan L Kansas Gabriel s Iowa State Marques Illinois Memphis K State Thomas K Creighton Zaga Florida Joe H Auburn Florida State Baylor Ryan E Indiana Providence Weber State Eric L Duke Jason a Arkansas Jonathan L UNC Mark S Maryland Joshua B Purdue UCLA Louisville Zufan Yukon Jason G Kentucky Mark s Ohio State Brian P Arizona Jessica G Marquette Tony P USC Michael Michael P with LSU Nick P Tennessee to you Tewat Houston Taylor D Nova Virginia Virginia Tech Mark S, Oregon Anthony C BC Pitt Notre Dame Brian L Colorado Alabama Michigan Taylor D, Iowa Michael P Miami St. John's FAU Robert s Stanford posted Dude, I was a big five box mixer. All right. I'm shorting this 20 seconds guessing So we're behind 20 seconds 20 seconds guys guess the super 10 seconds five four three two and One time is up now All right, let's do it. Good luck everybody. Let's get those Delight cases filled up Get filled get a feel gonna field Star Wars as well getting closer our full sellout more spots keep coming in we got to get there though Let's talk to a stop-to-stop 12 and 13 still on delight y'all teams are a heavily marked down heavily discounted in a full delight case Like seriously, it's 36 autos in that break. That's it 36 Jeff says that's that's that's that's that's nothing He's got 36 autographs in his pocket right now in my pocket Three hobby for the lights. Good luck. Yelp factor of Hoggard for Michigan State You say on the insert there X-Fractor Ashna Hardaway, Memphis See some green shimmer to 99 Darren green green green for Florida States David Jones for Memphis, I don't know what's about Memphis this year Hoggard for Michigan State purple shimmer page buckets on the insert Aqua Justin Edwards for Kentucky out of 150 on the insert refractor Philippowski Duke. What happened Vaughan? What's happening? We pass having X-Fractor DJ Wagner, Kentucky Nice Vaughan He's playing and Vaughan's best baseball. Yeah, someone guessed it correct They hit their out They hit the super that they had the team for that they called so they doubled up gold shimmer to Sean Harris Smith from Maryland out of 50 So they did a Super Factor bounty and they had a guest Super Factor bounty all one card X-Fractor page buckets for Yukon Because he's still at 59 because everyone's been saying that he's got to have more at 59 now, right? 59 nice Lou Rayway, Philippowski to 199 Duke refractor post for BC Ronnie James Base auto Rekia Jackson for Tennessee your Aqua wave to 299 Johnny broom for Auburn a lot of Ronnie sharp shooters page Becker's Marco Jackson. The hack is not happening tomorrow Chris magic down by like 50 Fractor mirror little Baylor Score 187 Almost down by 40 we broke 90 we're 90 Nice refractor auto Zachary Rioshae Random at the end big card though. That's a fix leave. We'll get that out of that There we go. That's 160 to 250 Get that mags and random at the ends. Whoo. Good luck everybody on that Blue refractor is mirror little to 199 Baylor now You can guess to you before the break retired as long as it's within within that window though We had a 26 second window that you had to guess it now. We have a separate guessing super fractor just for guesses Just something we want to do for you Yeah, if you want to hit the big bouncy got to be in the break Someone hit two times you They knew their team and they also picked the player that that came from that team every super factor We hit counts to we reset down to a certain number big kahuna Purdue Zach Edie Refractor of McCain for Duke Lava autograph Ohio State Devon Royal Over to 199 purple to 399 a miss for Texas Cook Fractor mom shall of it's for Iowa State Shape a sex factor hid all go for Notre Dame Aqua wave to 299 is Dixon for Villanova Purple shimmer Hopkins Purdue and I Purdue Providence Providence on the Hopkins As long as you as long as you don't have a similar last name to someone else Let me see if I got yours puff Yeah, you'll be fine. You guessed in time if we hit Dickinson super Fractor of Dennis Evans for Louisville James and Sir Barney James base First woman auto is laden blocker for Arkansas Green shimmer to 99 Omaha bill you for oh Iowa States nice needs at 63 Blue ray wave Kailin Clark, Iowa for the 199 Shit inserts Collier X factor of Kailin Clark Lou refractor to 199 Chris Johnson for Texas X factor Edie for Purdue last hobby box Yeah, any numbered card goes in a top loader That's right or any extra actor don't break with some of that won't put a numbered card in a top loader Just keep it's like a boom grown card That's crazy protect Fractor of Darren Green for Florida States green refractor auto for Illinois is going to be Coleman Hawkins to 99 first bowman Coleman Hawkins aqua to 299 for Illinois Fractor of McNeely for Virginia Barney James inserts X factor of Middleton for Ohio States Purple refractor to 399 is Chapman for Ohio States Riyashay X factor for Someone at the end to be random at the end Fractor of McKaylee Williams LSU You'd another one refractor auto to 250 Riyashay random at the end that'll be separate from the other auto Nice That one's 134 of 250 Raywave Kylan Boswell to 100 for Arizona Riyashay refractor Green refractors a missed the 99 for Texas extra factor Javante Taylor Memphis Purple Minis I'm in a 399 make color for Kansas Purple shimmer Cody Williams Colorado right into the delights Afternoon tonight Anyone bad and beat under tonight? I think you're gonna miss it by like 50 just if you did points rebounds and assists you're just He passed it in like the the 13 minutes into the game Poplar Ryan Colkbrenner big kahuna Kentucky Aaron Bradshaw School, baby. All right autos now refractor not sorry based on a DSU for Texas Green auto Texas Chris Johnson. There we go. That's a fix leave. I don't want to do it here and then a Katelyn Clark base auto for Iowa Let's go Katelyn.  Oh, that's cool orange big kahuna Haley van lith Let's go for LSU to 25 Talking about that is a sick-looking card, baby Haley van lith orange big kahuna Oh, yeah, all right. I guess I'm thinking base auto McCuller for Kansas Lava auto Duke Kyle Philippowski number to 199. That's a nice hit Jamir young base auto for Maryland. All right to 399 Weber State Dillon Jones 299 Mookie Coke Oregon van lith purple color match LSU green to 99 trade Norman. That's going to Marquette and Aqua wave Brandon Garrison and number to 299. Okay, okay states like you put like that orange big kahuna Pretty much just all as we get some nice stuff Real real real real real real nice factor Wagner Hardaway ED Simeon Wiltshire St. John's on the Ray wave sharp shooters to 150. Hey state first auto RJ Jones Mike Jones who? Green auto to 99 UNC Zaden high, you don't like him bead You might want to be he probably gonna MVP again First one auto FAU Elijah Martin. Who can guard that guy? No orange to 25 mom should love it for Iowa states He's a baller Blue to 199 comma Evans for Oregon Purple mini diamond of 399 Hawkins for Iowa or Illinois. Sorry, not Iowa, Illinois Ohio State to 199 or 299 Milton 399 proctor for Duke and to 75 Rikia Jackson, Tennessee. You got a flopper Like a plane for tonight Flopper flopper Fractura Lowry Cougal stromer Wagner on the insert Do it another Kailin Clark auto that's refractor out of 250 this time. Let's go, dude So I'm talking about grads to Taylor again refractor auto CC right there. We'll get that one magged actually numbered Kailin Clark Vaskovi base auto Tennessee Vaskovi school green to 99 cult runner Creighton first woman auto Olympus by 27 Sean Layton blocker yellow auto to 75 for Arkansas. That's not good enough Got aqua out of 299 Bradshaw Kentucky to 399 will go popular for Miami Mom should love it. I was stayed to 100 No to 199 aliyah Edwards Yukon Rikia Jackson, Tennessee All right So separate in the random. So we've got three spots in the random getting something here So we've got Got a couple autos here the first spot on the random We'll get the aria shea auto to one 134 250 the second spot gets the 160 of 250 refractor auto third spot gets any other non Collegiate cards oh nine times six and three top three here one Two three four five six seven eight and nine Miami gets the first one Indiana gets the second one and then Yukon will get the other not in the collegiate autos Auto sorry, there weren't autos. It's just nice. Yeah, the third spot. They don't have any others. The only autos are spots one and two All right recap time So low numbered and then all of our autos here. We had mom to love it. She picked a little orange haley van lith So I've grabbed our shorts Scovie Martin RJ Jones junior young Filipowski Lava the color desu Clark blocker royal Rikia Jackson Zayden hi cult Brenner Chris Johnson at Coleman Hawkins Layden blocker gold Javante Taylor to reassay refractor autos here to 250 And a Katelyn Parker factor out of the 250 that'll do it. Thanks again everybody moving on now to Number 10


Hello again. So, we thought it'd be great. You know, everyone that we chatted with, as Toby mentioned, more than 50% of the folks are running things from the SMAC stacks. We really wanted to do a panel where we could focus on that. And I couldn't be more excited about having Neha from Confluent and Jonathan from DataStacks to join me today so they could come on up. Round of applause for them. So, you know, I think I'll start this just with that it's so fun to be on this panel with you guys.  So, they're going to talk about themselves in just a second, but really quickly. Co-creator Cassandra and co-founder of DataStacks, co-creator of Kafka and co-founder of Confluent, that's pretty really impressive, guys. So, it's really, really fun to be on the panel with them. And co-creator Mezos, yeah, right here. Well, yeah. So, what we're going to do, oh, and all Apache projects, all Apache projects, yeah, which is great. What we're going to do to kick things off is, you know, this is a conference about Mezos and so maybe not everyone has as familiar about DataStacks and Cassandra and Kafka and Confluent. So, we're going to kick off first with Jonathan, oops, I failed. Let's try this again. Jonathan, first describing a bit more about Cassandra and DataStacks. Thanks, Ben. And yourself. So, just a quick correction, I didn't create Cassandra. So, I was part of a team of engineers at Facebook created Cassandra, and I was part of the team that got it into Apache and take it kind of the next generation of involvement with Cassandra. And I think that's one of the strengths of open source, by the way, you said, you know, we're all part of Apache, all part of open source, is it lets us, you know, kind of build on the shoulders of giants and we don't have to reinvent those wheels, but we can work together to do that. So, I think Cassandra is kind of an open source success story that it's gone from, you know, a corporate incubation to an open source success, even though those are two different teams making that happen. So, now a couple years after I started working on Cassandra, I founded DataStacks to commercialize it. And today, DataStacks is providing the S and the C in smack, but also graph and security and streaming analytics on top of that. So, I think early on, DataStacks had the reputation of, oh, you're just, you know, bolting Apache projects together, but it's come a long way since then. And just in terms of where we see this being used, in personalization, in fraud detection, customer 360 apps in particular are interested in the graph piece. And a couple of the verticals that are particularly interested, retail and logistics are really invested in this. Great. Thanks, Jonathan. All right. And you, Neha. Hi, everyone. I'm Neha. Thank you for the introduction. You know, one such giant that I was at, called LinkedIn, that's where Kafka took birth about eight years ago. And since then, Kafka has come a long way. I'm a co-founder and CTO at Confluent. We are the creators of Kafka and also the main backers of Kafka. So, let me just get a quick show of hands of people who have heard of Kafka, used Kafka, so I know the level of, okay, 90%. So, I'll just keep moving them. Okay. So, Kafka has come a long way. It started off as a messaging system, and today it's a distributed streaming platform, which means it allows you to publish and subscribe streams of data as in a messaging system. It allows you to store data in a, you know, replicated cluster and then it allows you to do stream processing, right? So, Kafka's claim to fame is that it's wicked fast, easy to use, horizontally scalable. And so, now it's used in thousands of companies worldwide to do all sorts of things, you know, from IoT applications, where it's used as, you know, sort of a messaging backbone for microservices to do streaming ETL. And now it's a basis for doing stream processing. And so, at Confluent, we provide an enterprise distribution of Kafka and a fully hosted service called Confluent Club. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Yeah. So, you know, I think we got a great explanation of really where the M comes in, in SMAC when it comes to this world. I think both Michael from JPMC and Toby described that pretty well. You know, you think you all know what Mesos is, so I won't describe what that is. But really, I think what's more interesting is the glue that we're really seeing with this stack, with SMAC, and we didn't pull all the letters together, but we pulled the ones that we see the most that I see the most when I go out and chat with organizations, both open source users and enterprise. And I thought, you know, we'd kick off the panel with talking a bit more about those use cases. You know, you started to mention a couple of them. You know, what are the use cases you guys are seeing for SMAC? Go ahead.   So, the hybrid nature of the deployment is one of the central aspects. My favorite IoT use cases around connected cars where, you know, they're trying to do these worldwide tracking of cars to detect problems earlier, learn about driver behavior, and so on. So, it's really, you know, around a span of different industries, also Fintech to do real-time credit card processing, and so on. This is always a question that I had trouble with, and especially early on when we were trying to raise funding for data stacks and the venture capitalists would say, well, what do people use Cassandra for and, you know, what are you better at than anyone else? And that was always a tough problem or a tough question for me because I've always seen it as a general purpose database, and you can build any kind of application you want. And so, kind of a way of framing the question that I think is more answerable is, what are the characteristics of those applications that make this kind of architecture compelling? And so, some of the characteristics are that they need to be always on. They need real-time responses. They need to be distributed, and they need to be scalable. And so, I think when you're looking at applications that require those things, I think all of us on stage are representing kind of that next generation that really that's what the SMAC stack is for, of that generation of cloud applications that your MySQL stacks aren't going to get you to. That's a perfect transition into the next set of questions. When you think about, again, where the M plays a huge role in the SMAC stack, it's providing that platform that can be the same wherever you are. If you're in the cloud, or if you're on a cruise ship, not a boat, don't ever call it a boat to a cruise ship company, or if you're in an edge container data center at an airport. And so, I'd love to hear from you guys the role that you guys really see of cloud in sort of the SMAC world for your particular projects and companies and for the greater SMAC as well. Yeah, so we see a lot of use cases where the SMAC stack is involved for two things, right, where the cloud comes into the picture. One is migration from on-prem to some kind of public cloud, which is really what I would call hybrid. And the other is fully public cloud deployments. And the things that people are looking for and the role that the SMAC stack plays in both of these deployments is a little bit different. For fully public cloud deployments, the thing people are looking for, as Michael mentioned earlier, is cloud neutrality. People are really scared of cloud lock-in. And so what they're trying to do with the SMAC stack is be able to just get cloud neutral and be able to move across different cloud deployments. The other aspect is, which I think is fascinating, is the migration aspect, right, particularly what DCOS does is give you sort of a layer in between the applications and your underlying infrastructure, so it really doesn't matter where you're deployed. And the other aspect where Kafka comes in is it kind of gives you this central nervous system. So be able to kind of sync data between data centers, whether it's on-prem or in the cloud, or one cloud to the other cloud. So earlier this year, we announced Confluent Cloud as a mechanism to sort of provide a fully hosted Kafka as a service in the public cloud and a Confluent Replicator to be able to sync data between clouds and on-prem on the cloud. I just add that in terms of the hybrid cloud, I think early on there was some excitement around, hey, I'll have a data center on-premise and I'll be able to burst into the cloud to provide additional capacity. And we're not seeing a whole lot of that kind of use case. But we are seeing a majority of our customers are in the public cloud, but very few of those are only in the public cloud. And they'll run part of their application on-premise and part of it in the public cloud, even though they're not necessarily part of the same Cassandra cluster. Yeah, it turns out that bursting thing can be a little bit harder when you have a data gravity, huh? It takes years and years. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Okay, great. So transition a little bit. What are you guys seeing?  Or what are you guys seeing out there? And what are your recommendations for folks that maybe don't need all smack on pieces? So smack is interesting because it, as a term, it lets us kind of simplify the discussion and say, you know, here's, you know, I need to scale my application or I need to scale my data layer. I can go use Cassandra. I need to scale the complexity of my components. I can bring in Kafka. So it kind of has that framework of thinking about the problem space that's really useful. But, you know, from where I see it, I don't, I don't see people saying, I'm going to build a new application and it's going to be a smack application. And I'm going to use all of those tomorrow. But rather, I'm going to, you know, maybe, maybe my first data store is my sequel. And when I get tired of sharding that and it becomes more painful than I can tolerate, then I'll upgrade to Cassandra. And, you know, maybe I'll bring in Kafka to coordinate between my microservices. And these don't have to happen at the same time. So I see it more of an, as an incremental thing that people can adopt at different rates. And I think that's really healthy. Yeah, I'll add to that. I think I completely agree with Jonathan. That's how I've seen these technologies get adopted. I also think that it's easier to adopt the smack stack, whether you're doing it incrementally or not, because it's complementary to everything else that you have in your data center.  And when you think about the world you end up with, there's a big chasm in the middle, right? You have the relational databases on one side, request response applications, and the warehouse on the other. And what the smack stack does is provide you sort of a, you know, good stack to come in with the chasm in the middle, which is asynchronous data processing applications. So, you know, the way I see this getting adopted is it's very much complementary in addition to all the things that you have for when you need fast data processing and data management. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Right, so I think the takeaway is don't just start with the whole thing. You can start with the pieces, but you'll probably converge as you go and add more of this functionality in. And smack is a great way to really talk about that entire architecture and all those pieces. I, you know, from our perspective, I think that's what we've seen as well. You know, we've seen some folks that have really started from the whole thing. Sometimes it's not just smack, it's smack or some of the other acronyms. But there's also lots of folks that start slowly and grow. So speaking of acronyms and smack and other ones, were you guys surprised that there ended up being a smack stack and acronym? And I think, you know, we need to give credit here. I believe to Alexi, I always mispronounce his name, Krabov, I believe is his last name, who I think was the first one that actually coined the term. Were you guys surprised that, you know, that there is a smack stack, that there was an acronym for it? So I'm not surprised that the smack stack exists, but I find the acronym very amusing. The other day, someone told me about the pancake stack. I won't go into the details over what that means.  It's been fascinating to see why it came along. In the last 10 years, the distributed systems have become a lot more practical. And I think in the whole world, like I mentioned before, right, you had databases and the warehouse and nothing in the middle. I think two trends really changed that, from my opinion, I think. One is digitization of the enterprise, right? So the need for creating data-oriented, you know, solutions, that's one. And the other is just the practicality of distributed systems in general. So these two things coming together led to explosion of data on one side and an explosion of distributed data systems that each solve one part of your data management problem really well. And to me, the smack stack is really a collection of the most well-adopted and, you know, most sort of prolific technologies that allow you to manage data. What I like about the smack stack is that, you know, if you look at some of the, you know, some of the stacks out there, they're an acronym looking for an excuse to exist. And I feel like with smack, people were building cloud applications and they needed that scale, they needed that real-time response rate. And so when I go to data stacks customers, I see a lot of Kafka, I see a lot of Mesosphere. So I feel like this was something that, whether someone was going to put an acronym on it or not, you know, these are some common patterns and common technologies that people are using to solve some of the biggest problems in the industry. Yeah, yeah. I like that as well. I think it's always better when the acronyms come later than there's some real usage, some real practitioners doing stuff and not just the marketing, nothing against the marketing, Peter. Marketing is really important. So, you know, one of the things we didn't really talk too much about, but I think really plays a role in this, especially with the growth of stack is open source. So, you know, how do you guys feel open source played a role in smack and has played a role in your projects and the companies? So I spoke to that a little bit early on. I think one of the things that's interesting thinking about the role of open source in the industry moving forward is the conditions that led to Cassandra 10 years ago and Kafka eight years ago, Mesos eight years ago, those conditions are changing. And in particular, companies today building new projects, they're looking for simplicity, they're looking to get everything in a box, they're looking for hosted solutions. And so, the public cloud vendors are playing a really a much more significant role than they were when our projects and our companies got started. So I'm not sure what that's going to look like for that next generation of infrastructure, whether that's going to be open source first or cloud first or something else. I'd really like to touch upon something you said earlier, Jonathan, about these technologies were born from these big giants. And I think that's a really important part of why the stack formed in the first place is because we got time to harden it in a real company for many years. So Kafka ran in production at LinkedIn still does for several years, which is why it became easy to use for everyone. But I think the role that open source played in how software gets bought and adopted in enterprises is really fascinating. Earlier, the decision of whether to use a Mesos or use a Cassandra or use a Kafka would have been a top down decision made by the sea levels. But today, I think due to open source, it's a very bottom up adoption model where the developer is actually the real buyer. You're the real decision maker of what technology to use, how it gets adopted, what problems it solves. Of course, later down the line, some enterprises do come in to sort of provide a full-fledged product. But to me, the just empowerment of the developers that is a real change that open source brought along that I'm very excited about. Yeah. I think it's very powerful the way open source has really empowered developers to be able to make the changes they want in their organizations. I think it's also really interesting to think about how the landscape has changed. And for a lot of these open source projects, sometimes some of their biggest competitors could be some of the big cloud providers that are taking those open source projects and turning them into products. It's one of the things that I've actually spoken about in the past at some of the open source summits. And it's one of the things that we're kind of definitely excited about trying to do at Mesosphere, which is make it so that you don't have to be locked into a single cloud, or you can have just as good of a SaaS-like experience for your projects and your products, even if you're the little guy, even if you're a small project or a small company, but you want to have the same flexibility of running at scale across multiple clouds simultaneously. So I think it's interesting how the landscape has evolved, and it'll be interesting to see how that continues to evolve in the future. Okay. I think from here, you would mention earlier a new acronym, Pancake. And I'm curious if you guys see a SMAC 2.0, is there a SMAC 2.0? We've got a 10-year-old project, 10, right? 10-year-old projects. We've got an 8-year-old project. We've got an 8-year-old project. Some might say that they're just getting to great maturity and scale. Some might say that that's a long time. Is there a 2.0? Does there need to be a 2.0? What do we think? You know, I think enterprise software is never rip and replace. So things that work well and are adopted, they're there to stay for decades. So I think one part of the evolution that is just inevitable is what I would call cloudification of every part of the SMAC stack. And what I mean by that is, you know, both capability-wise as well as operationalization of each of the components, right? Ben, you mentioned earlier multi-tenancy encoders. And that is what I would call, you know, capability-wise evolution of something like Mezzos. I see the same in Kafka.  If I were to take, you know, a couple steps for the look into the future, I might just say that it might, SPAC 2.0 might be called something else entirely. It's because of two things, I think consolidation on one side and proliferation on the other. You know, proliferation because each of the layers are solving problems that are extremely hard to date, right? Whether you talk about orchestration layers, and we just saw Kubernetes being deployed with DCOS. Or you talk about stream processing. I think there's this probably proliferation that's expected because these are large enough spaces and markets. And the other is consolidation. You know, if you just think about how Kafka was born, it was born in its messaging system today. It stores data that can be queried using SQL, and it allows you to write applications. So there's some overlap with both Spark and Aka, right? So I think it would be fascinating to watch how these things evolve, but I would expect it will be called something else. You know, if not pancake, maybe something else. I think SPAC is solving a distinct problem space in the industry for scalable cloud applications. And so I think what that does is it provides a foundation that you can build on top of. And so what I don't think is going to happen, I don't think people are going to look at that foundation and say, you know, I need to rip out this storage layer and put in a different piece there. But rather, I think what people are going to say is now that we've got a solid foundation, what can we build on top of it? And so you're starting to see this with things like deep learning for J, which provides machine learning for data in Cassandra analyzed using Spark. And so once you have that foundation, there's a lot of interesting stuff you can build. That's a perfect segue into one of my last questions, which is what do you see problems that we're going to be able to solve with SPAC that we hadn't been solving in the past? You see things that you either chat with organizations, you're like, I'm really excited to see people doing something like that in the future. Anything come to mind? I think one, I might take a stab at this is breaking down silos, right? I think earlier we saw the JPMC picture of all these risk management and all these different things. And in the old enterprise, those were just, you know, things that were locked up and in each in their own silo. I think the SMAC stack, it sort of, you know, provides or creates data as a first class citizen, as someone mentioned earlier. And I really believe that's like a big change that will really change how applications are built.  So that's, I think, it's a big deal. I think, that's what I call event-driven, data-driven enterprise that's going to allow the brick-and-mortar enterprises to compete with the Amazons of the world. You know, just before Jonathan, just before you go, I just, what you got me thinking about is it goes both ways, right? I remember not too long ago I went to, I think I was getting a new parking pass in the city and they wouldn't let me buy that. I'm sorry to hear that. Yeah. And they wouldn't let me buy my parking pass because I had outstanding a speeding ticket. Was this a speeding ticket? No. I forget what it was. It was something. I said, but you guys are completely different organizations. They're like, oh, we've got this cool new thing smack and it lets us pull all the data together. They didn't actually say that part. But, you know, they were, and I just thought to myself, oh my gosh, what beast are we enabling? Because this is not good for me. I mean, it's great for the businesses. But I, you know, I had to pay a lot of money to get my parking. That's how I feel when I talk to the government agencies of what they're doing with Kafka. Just let's stop there. So, what about you, Jonathan? So you're saying smack can be used for evil as well as for good? Well, I mean, I guess I don't know if it's evil, but it's at least for making sure that we all pay our fines. So I think the technical problems that smack allows you to solve are pretty well understood at this point. I think maybe a more interesting question is what does smack do for your business as we move into this cloud first era of computing? And what smack does for your business is it allows you to maintain ownership of your data. And I think that's the crown jewel of any business. You don't want to be beholden to, you know, I'm sure the people at Google Cloud, we had on stage earlier, are very fine people. But you don't want Google owning your data. You don't want Amazon owning your data. You want to own that yourself. And that's what smack allows you to do. Yeah, great. Okay. So last one, totally off script, not thinking about what you guys do in your day to day lives. What's an interesting piece of technology that you guys are following that you think is really interesting that maybe the audience would find interesting too? To me, I think it's TensorFlow. The Google guys are here. They're going to be really happy. Android is losing, but TensorFlow is winning, guys. I just think it's fascinating. I mean, getting access to thousands of GPUs worth of compute and being able to use these algorithms that have been baked in for years and years at companies like Google. I think that's super fascinating. And thank you, Google, for outsourcing it. Jonathan, anything you can come to mind? I do think machine learning is in general, as embodied by TensorFlow is it's going to unlock a lot of new opportunities, both for entrepreneurs as well as for consumers. And I'm curious to see what, so the old joke is that AI is whatever we don't know, we don't understand how to do, right? So now that we kind of understand machine learning, that's its own space. It's not part of AI anymore. So I'm interested to see what the next kind of spin off from the AI world is. Yeah, I think it'll be really interesting, one of the things we often talk about within the MESIS community is how we can apply a lot of these kinds of things back to projects like MESIS. And I'm sure you guys think about those as well for your own projects. You know, ways in which the projects themselves, the technology itself can start to learn and be smarter and do things that humans would otherwise be doing. So I think that's a really bright and exciting future. Great. Okay, so let's wrap it up. Thank you guys so much for being part of this panel. It's been a lot of fun. Thanks again for being who you are and continuing to drive the industry forward. It's really a enjoyable time for me to be changing the world with you guys. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having me.


in, so now we're wired up here in the case that this really is only the case of something that you found was neat to check on, and yours don't have it or anything, where I've actually from time to time been able to serve as someone whose take didn't get it and who needed it. Well, you have us on occasion. You have us on occasion. Yeah. Appreciate that. Mr. President, as you may know, we're preparing a story for this Sunday's post on the third anniversary, right after the third anniversary of your inauguration, that's going to try to look at what's been accomplished and what might lie ahead. We'd like to ask you, what is it that you feel that you've achieved as President, as a central achievement? What do you think there's, do you still think there's left to do? And assuming on our part that you intend to seek a second term, we're not going to step on your announcement, but if that should happen, why is it that you would want to run again? What would you want to accomplish in that second term? Well, let's start out with the situation as of three years ago. Skyrocketing interest rates, higher than they've been in 100 years, inflation in double digits, a continued decline in business, and a continued increase in unemployment. And today, we're in the midst of a recovery. While the interest rates are still too high, there are only about half of what they were. There we have returned to economic growth without inflation. In fact, we brought inflation down to about a fourth or so of what it was. 3.2 for the year. Personal earnings after taxes increased last year, about 5 percent, real income, about 5 percent. All of this turnaround, this economic turnaround, I think is one of the great accomplishments because the great many economists are suggesting that it not only is a recovery from a recession, but that it is the beginning of growth and expansion. Prior to this time, we were told that we might, if you remember, voices were saying that we might have to give up the idea that there's any future growth in America, that we'll be a no-growth society. Voices were saying that inflation was institutionalized and it would take a decade at least of great effort before it could ever be brought under control. We have about four million more people working today than we had working a year ago at this time, and that's one of the biggest increases or decreases, I should say, in unemployment in a great many years. What do you think there's left to do that? You see, you've done so much. No, there is much to do, but on the other hand, there were other things. I said repeatedly, and long before I was ever a candidate for this job, that in recent years there's been a growing hunger in our land for what I called a spiritual revival, a feeling of, again, of people with a belief in themselves and in our country, a belief in our institutions. We know that in the defense field that our national security had been badly eroded. We know that we didn't have the approval or respect of many of our neighbors and allies and certainly of our adversaries. All of this has changed also. But now you just say, why, well now without saying what I'm going to say on the 29th, one way or the other, no, the job isn't finished.  We haven't gotten all of the economic improvements that we asked for, and no one ever wants to walk away from a job unfinished. If there was to be a second, a regular administration, a second term, what would be your central purpose in it? What would you want most to accomplish in that second term? To continue on the same economic path to where we did have not only just a recovery but a return to a growth economy in this country. To continue what I think we have started and that is a real viable search for peace, particularly by way of disarmament. And that is the goal above all that I must meet. I remember as a small boy the war to end all wars, World War I, but I also remember coming out of World War II and coming out of uniform with the firm conviction, this must never happen again. And I still have that conviction. We've only begun in the area of trying to better international relations and bring about reduction of armaments and particularly reduction of nuclear weapons and hopefully one day the total elimination of them. All that remains to be done. There are other things that on the social side here in our own system, apart from the economic things, legislative matters. There are things like reforms in our budgetary system, adoption of constitutional amendments to require a balanced budget as so many of our states do, line item veto power for a president to help curb spending and keep it under control. But then in the social area, restoration of prayer in schools, treatment of the problems of abortion. There are things of that kind that I haven't fallen back from or retreated from and we still haven't made much progress with. When you took office, some of the things that you mentioned were items like the line item veto, which you have in Sacramento. And there were people in your administration who described Washington kind of as a big Sacramento and said that you could deal with the problems here much the way you did there. Has that turned out to be true and has there been anything that you've learned from being here in the White House specifically that you didn't bring when you came to Sacramento? Well of course there is one phase and one facet of this job that no one has at the state level and that is foreign policy. I think I was surprised at how much a part of the job that is, how much what percentage of your time and effort and thinking is devoted to the international situation. But with regard to domestic policies and I never referred to it as just a big Sacramento but the same situation, it's a very funny thing prevailed. When I became governor of California, California was in a desperate economic straight. It was spending a million dollars a day more than we were taking in. I know the figures are a little different at the state level than they are at the federal level. California is about 10 percent of the population of the nation. But we had to deal with that and there we had a time consideration in dealing with it because California does have a constitutional provision that you cannot have a deficit and you come into office in the middle of the fiscal year. So a deficit had already been piled up and we only had six months to treat with that problem. But that and the other part of the situation is ahead of legislature, the majority of which belong to the other party, in that case in both houses, here at least we have a majority in one house. So it would be difficult for there to be too many surprises. It was kind of geared, the only experience I'd had was dealing with that kind of a situation. You were, when you entered office here, you were preoccupied as you said with the problems of the economy. Yes. That was your term, your target of assassination attempt in our wounded. Looking back on it, do you think that in the first year you left perhaps of necessity, foreign policy issues too much to your subordinates or how do you feel about that period now? Oh, no. No, from the very first, as a matter of fact, lying in that hospital bed after that assassination attempt, I wrote a letter and to Leonid Brezhnev on our relationship and sent it to him in longhand as I had written it. No, you can't be here very long without realizing that that is very much an important part of this job. As I expressed earlier my surprise, I guess it was just that, as I say, I hadn't anticipated that it was that much of a daily, of a daily problem. From my own experience in California, it is true I came here with my attention fixed on the great economic problems that faced us. At the same time, I had declared over and over again that I was going to see if we couldn't embark on a refurbishing of our defensive capability, which had been allowed to decline so much, and it didn't take me long, as I say, to find out that the international situation was very much a part of the daily schedule. How much is a president? You, any president, control this international situation. I mean, as a president, do you feel you can affect control of these foreign situation in the Oval Office, or are you pretty well governed by events over which either you or anybody else has any control? Well, with a great big wide world out there, there are always going to be events and surprises, but you have to deal with those, and you have to deal very definitely with the problem of your relations with the friendly nations of the world, as well as the adversarial ones, and you'd better start right in doing that, which I did. Let me, just if I could, illustrate a surprise, a real physical surprise that came to me. Getting in the helicopter in the South Lawn to go someplace across out of the district, about a half an hour flight to a luncheon invitation. That was my first awareness, leaving the White House just that distance, to discover that now wherever a president of the United States goes, phones have been installed, all the communication equipment and so forth that keeps you in touch with every corner of the world, and I was, I was overwhelmed to discover that, that I couldn't do something of that kind without having that kind of preparation take place. It's just a few days after you became president? Yes, and it, it brought home to you that, and when you stopped to think about it, I had to say to myself, I understand the necessity for this, I, this isn't something in which I could say, well this is foolish, isn't this excessive? No, it isn't excessive, and you know that there's one person yourself who must be available for instant communication worldwide. You said in a, in a recent interview that you would not use the phrase now, focus of able to apply the Soviet Union. Your language today in this speech was, was obviously very careful. Do you think that some of your own rhetoric phrases like evil empire and so forth have, whether or not those are accurate descriptions, do you think those phrases have contributed to the difficulty of negotiating, dealing with the Soviets? No, and really I think they have been overplayed and over exaggerated in much of the talk about the present international situation. We are not in greater danger. We are not closer to a war than we were a few years ago. The rhetoric, and all you have to do is look back at the pattern of Soviet rhetoric, no matter who is in the White House, and what has been going on for years that we're imperialists, we're, we're aggressors, we're, all of these things that they've been saying about us know, I'm not repeating some of those things, but simply because I said them and what I felt was necessary was for the Soviet Union to know that we were facing real reality and that we were, that there was some realism on our part with regard to them and their style. Now, Lou, let me take advantage of this to straighten something out that ever since the first press conference, there has been a distortion of an answer of mine to a question there that has become just accepted, and that is that I called the Soviets a lot of names, gave an answer to a question about dealing with the Soviets, and everyone seems to have forgotten that I was quoting them with regard to lying, cheating, and so forth. I didn't say that, that that was my opinion of them. I made it very plain that they themselves in their writing and speaking over the years have said that anything of this kind, that furthers socialism is moral. They do not view it as immoral. If it furthers their cause, Lenin's famous line that treaties are like pie crusts, they're made to be broken. So even if they said it, do you think it was wise of them, wise of you to bring it up? Yes, I thought that it was necessary that they know, now I did not volunteer that as a statement. It was an answer to a question. But I think it was necessary for them to know that we were looking at them realistically from here. There was an end to what I think maybe has been prevalent in some dealings for several years, and that is the idea that, well, they were just a mirror image of ourselves and you could shake hand on someone's word and walk away confident that a deal had been made, that no, we were aware of the differences between our two societies and our approach to things, and we intended to deal with that realism. You touched on this today in your speech, and you said today that we're safer than we were, than we were, I think, when you took office. With the negotiations broken off and a pretty good stream of rhetoric from the other side, what's the evidence that we're safer and that this defense buildup which you advocated and achieved has made this country safer than it was? Because with realism on their part, we have a deterrent capacity we didn't have three years ago. Now, you are in danger if a possible adversary thinks that an action of his would not lead to unacceptable punishment, and I think the very fact that we have proceeded on this path would require them with their realism to say this it would be unacceptable the damage to ourselves. Can I interject here to ask you if you think that the American people haven't heard that message from you and do you really think that they feel safer today and they did when you were elected? I have to say that from all the reports that I'm getting and from all the contact that I myself have, whether it's through mail or personal meetings or, of course, meeting new people as well as old friends, that yes there is a new feeling in the part of the American people. They have a confidence that they didn't have just a short time ago when they knew that the Soviet Union had engaged in this massive arms buildup and they saw evidences that we hadn't, not only the decline in quality as well as in quantity, the restiveness of our NATO allies about whether we were dependable as an ally, I think there's a great change in the feeling of our people now. I think a little evidence of that, granted this wasn't any great military operation, but I think the reaction of our people to the success of our rescue mission in Grenada was an indication. Mr. President, speaking of Grenada and turning to another foreign policy issue, when we sent American forces to Grenada, they were welcome. When you sent American forces to Lebanon, they'd been shot at. What in your mind accounts for the difference? Well, let me put two things out. For one thing, there was no question that we rescued some people that, not just Americans, the Grenadians themselves made it plain that they were not happy with the form of government that they saw being imposed on themselves, but let's go back to when we first sent the Marines to Beirut. And remember, they went in answer to a request from the Lebanese government, but Beirut was a battlefield. Thousands and thousands of civilians were being killed, were being wounded and maimed because a battle, a war, was being fought in the right within the streets of the city. We arrived and were well received by the people there. As a matter of fact, our American Marines in a typical American military fashion pretty soon were organizing helpful things for kids, teaching them to play ball and all sort of things of this kind. In the city, I have mail that indicates that the people felt that finally they had a chance to live and relatively normal lives. Now granted, that very much divided society is a place where you're never quite sure that there isn't going to be a sniper in the street, some terrorism of some account, but all this went on and a great deal of progress was made, the agreement between Lebanon and Israel, Israel's withdrawal, the beginning of communications between some of the internal factions and the Lebanese government, the progress in the Lebanese in building their own military, which we were very much apart. Our training, our provision of weapons built that army up to about 35,000 is right now and is continuing to build up and it has conducted itself well in the battles that it has been engaged in. It's proven that it is a capable military. Now, all of this, I have a letter from a young man actually is Greek, but his job and his life is in Lebanon and this letter didn't come to me. It was sent to his girlfriend who doesn't live in Lebanon and she thought I would like to see this letter and he was telling of the experiences and what the Marines meant and telling of what the slaughter would have been if it was not for the presence of Marines. But now a few months ago, this started the thing that you've mentioned. This attacked not only in our Marines but on the others of the multinational force and it started, I think for one reason and it's very obvious, one reason only. There are terrorist elements who know that they cannot succeed in their cause while the multinational force is there and they are trying to take advantage of what they see as criticism here, lack of public support in the hope that public opinion will force the withdrawal of the multinational force and it would be disaster if they succeeded but what we should see is that the very fact they're doing that is proof of the fact that the multinational force was being successful in its purpose. Given that these terrorist attacks began, do you agree with the long commission that the mission of the Marines changed while they were there and that they were unwisely deployed specifically at the Beirut Airport? Well I've read that report very carefully and frankly I thought it was a fine report. I thought they had great understanding in everything that they were criticizing there. I don't interpret their suggesting a change in the mission as meaning that they had one purpose when they went there and now suddenly they've changed and have a different purpose. The only incident that could be interpreted as them participating in a military action say in alliance with the Lebanese forces had to do with one in which the decision was very carefully considered and before it was made and that is at Suq Al-Garb, a little village of Suq Al-Garb, which looks down the throat of our forces there as well as others. It's about the situation of Capitol Hill with regard to the White House geographically. It's that much proximity and the Lebanese armed forces were in an engagement and this was at a period before they were as well built up as they are now to retake and preserve Suq Al-Garb from being possessed by the same forces that are creating the terror and so forth. Well we believed that if we were going to have the Marines at the airport there that we had a stake in their security and safety and so we joined in during that engagement with naval offshore artillery in support of the Lebanese armed force. Now I don't think that that makes us as presently changing our purpose or our mission. This was the decision was made based on the fact that our Marines would be in an untenable position if that area in the hills looking down on them fell into those hostile hands. So we we helped in the preservation of it as a neutral territory. No the mission is still what it was. And that is that remember that the main goal was the departure from Lebanon of foreign forces. We helped in the evacuation of the PLO which was definitely one of the hostile foreign forces. Granted many of them then came back in by way of Syria and other places but that was out. We had had the word previously that both Israel and Syria would withdraw when the Lebanese government was able to take over the policing of its own territory. The multinational force was to be there you might say behind the Lebanese army helping preserve order in that divided land while they went out and restored sovereignty. Well Israel withdrew to much closer to their own borders is not fully withdrawn but because Syria then balked and said no they would not withdraw and so the mission still remains to enable the Lebanese armed forces and the Lebanese government to resume control over their own sovereignty their own territory. Remains a mission but Mr. President you're well known for your optimism. Do you think in retrospect you were just too optimistic in believing that sending the Marines there could bring about a prompt diplomatic solution given what's happened in the past few years? No I never set any timetable on it never thought it was something was going to happen in 48 hours. We had remember with Phil Habib the long time and before any Marines were ever anything of that kind ever sent there his shuttle diplomacy and the successes that he had incidentally. This was at a time when Israel had invaded and all the way into Beirut and was battling the PLO in Beirut. If you look at what has been achieved if you look at the difference in spite of the still ongoing fire and fighting that's going on there has been great progress made. No I don't think we were over optimistic this was part of our whole overall peace plan for the Middle East. We did not feel since a fair legitimate settlement of the PLO problem the Palestinian problem was must be a part of the peace proposal that I made a year ago September that it could not go forward while you had that war going on in Lebanon. So Lebanon which was not really you might say the primary part of what we're trying to achieve which is finally a peace between the Arab nations and Israel to date other than Lebanon the only peace treaty that we have is between Egypt and Israel. What we're aspiring to are more Egypt's more Arab nations that will drop that claim that Israel has no right to exist will recognize their right to exist will come into peace negotiations with them but it seemed that you could not move on that until you settled this Lebanon issue and then proceeded on and we still think there's movement maybe now it has reached a point that we can begin to proceed with the the broader peace initiatives. All of this is part of the diplomatic exchanges that are going on. Okay we would it be we have we have two questions could we ask them both do you have we'll make it quick you go first yes yes yes the one is they both do. Mr. President in 1980 you expressed a lot of confidence that you could balance the budget build up the offensive budget and cut taxes and you could accomplish all three of these in retrospect you know one of your officials said it last week that it was good that you accomplished two out of three. Do you think you promised too much in terms of reducing the deficit? No but again with all of this having to project economic situations five years ahead and so forth and which I don't believe in I think the best of economists aren't very much good beyond the first year and most of them will privately admit it to you. The thing was no one there had been no prediction of the sudden deepening of the recession. That caught everyone by surprise and that has had a lot to do with the fact that only two out of three so far we have not balanced the budget. Fifty percent of the deficit is occasioned by the recession the fact that people instead of being employed and paying taxes suddenly became dependents you might say of government because they were no longer working and paying taxes the great increase in unemployment that took place. That was one there was one other thing that none of us could foresee and again it comes down to projections none of us reduced inflation so we had to readjust our projections based on how far down we had brought inflation so we did not foresee that. I still believe that in spite of this setback that we can and with the cooperation of Congress proceeding on the same lines involving both further spending getting the spending measures or the cuts that we asked for and have not yet gotten. Remember our deficits would be considerably smaller if Congress had given us all the cuts and spending that we asked for they didn't but we're going to continue on that path and we're going to continue looking at the longer range on planning and reviewing those things that you might say are structural changes in government that have not been dealt with as yet so that you don't have a built-in increase in spending that is well as Congress itself refers to it as uncontrollable you know if you pass something that guarantees a constant increase in spending and you've passed the measure and then you never have to lay hands on it again it just automatically keeps increasing that is uncontrollable only to the sense that you in Congress and the government are not willing to deal with it and change what you did that was wrong. You want to take the last question yeah we're overstayed our time thank you Larry for patients here. Martin Luther King's birthday was Sunday and many people celebrate that because of the efforts he put into bringing about changes in the laws in the country put in civil rights law so that blacks and whites would have equal treatment under the law. Do you think there's anything more to be done now by the government by anyone to bring about equality between the races? Oh yes although I do think that you know you you can't I guess ever totally erase any place in the world among human beings bigotry and prejudice one way or the other it's that hatreds go both ways but having lived longer than anybody in this room I have firsthand memories of the situation as it was and I sometimes wonder if some of you who are younger realize how far we have come how totally different this country is than what it was then but that doesn't mean that you you quit no there are there are heritages left over from that time occupations let's say in jobs and so forth that that were once denied to a segment of our society and now are open to them but they don't have a past history and tradition going way back in them so that you have to be alert and you have to continue making sure that we don't fall back into any of the of the other patterns. Well so follow up to that if you if you were a young let's say that Ronald Reagan was a young black woman in Dixon Illinois today trying to make it in America and Ronald Reagan was the president do you think that that young black woman would prosper? Yes and I think that much of what we've done in our economic recovery has been more beneficial at the bottom of the economic ladder and we have to admit that because of past practices that a disproportionate number of blacks and other minorities are in that segment of the population at the bottom of the ladder but there are also great many whites that are in that too but the things that we have done in the economic recovery benefited them first and most of all let's take someone who only had an income of five thousand dollars which is way below the poverty line as we know at the beginning of 1979 by the end of 1980 in just those two years that five thousand dollars had lost 20% in purchasing power it would only buy four thousand dollars worth of food and shelter and clothing. Now the very fact of inflation alone look what it has done for those same people today the person at the average family at a median income has thirty three hundred dollars more in purchasing power than they would have had if we had stayed at the same tax and inflation rates of 1980 the the very fact that now the even with the unemployment the fact that there are more people working than have ever worked before in our history and not just more in numbers that you could say well it's accounted for by the growth in our population no a higher percentage of all the people between 16 and 65 which is taken as the workforce in a merry the potential workforce a higher percentage of those people are actually employed today even with our continued above normal unemployment than at any time in our in our previous history and the truth is that for both women and for minorities the percentage of decline in unemployment is greater for both women and minorities than it has been for the adult male or white male so I think we have done those things there's a I'm going to be referring to this young lady in a speech she was on the air the other night story of she didn't come from Dixon Illinois but 90 miles away Chicago out of a ghetto raised by a grandmother and today runs a tremendously successful multimillion dollar advertising agency in the city of Chicago and she happens to be black and she's the sole head and proprietor of this successful operation and it's not the case that that person would get the brakes only because of tax breaks given to the rich or something like that no as a matter of fact that again that that too is a distortion that our tax program gave the brakes to the rich let me just draw a contrast with numbers so I won't have to try and convince you by rhetoric John F. Kennedy had a tax reduction program somewhat similar to ours back in the early 60s some of his own party opposed him very very much on this but he went forward with it and said it will stimulate the economy it'll actually increase eventually revenues more than decrease and it did now 29 percent of his of his tax relief went to business only 23% of ours did and he gave greater cuts to the top five tax brackets than we did with ours a greater percentage of ours is below the top brackets in this 25% across the board that we put in but be in addition to that we put in some other things like giving working mothers a more tax credit or deduction for child care that they might have to provide like giving the working wives they have there's a tax penalty on them in the income tax we reduce that very sizably now most two earner families are two earners because they are at the lower end of the earning scale we did a number of things which has benefited at the lower level more than at the upper level yes I think the I think there's a greater opportunity for young people today in this country and then there's been for a long long time and well when I was a sports announcer after I got out of college just let's look at one difference you push that button and you look at pro football and you look at pro baseball you look at pro basketball when I was a sports announcer blacks were not allowed to play in any of those games organized games and there were a lot of us at that time that editorialized like hell against that and said that was wrong and it was wrong and it's all been changed